UZLI ' Oa 



'(rO<1y^ WKt£A V 



Cb orv 'XcrtX^Lt 



Luin<v. 



Spc^v aj ^(rr^- ^^^^'^ S.W- 




Glass EJiXl 

Book .S 5^ 



7^ 



SELF-GOVERNMENT IN LOUISIANA. 



SPEECH 



HON. JOHN SHERMAN, 

OF OHIO, 



UNITED STATES SENATE, 



JA:N^UART 16 AKD 22, 1875. 



•i-^ 



,. Z4O 

V^'. ^ 



WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 
1875. 



F 



■ S6'i- 






^-7 



SPEECH 



HOX. JO HA" SHE E MAN 



The Senate haviug under consideration the resolution submitted by Mr. Sciiurz 
on the 8th of January, diiecting the Committee on the Judiciary to imjuire what 
legislation is necessary to secure to the people of the State of Louisiana their rights 
of self-government vinder the Constitution — 

Mr. SHERMAN said: 

Mr. President: The first matter I vrisli to bring to the atten- 
tion of the Senate is tlie gross injustice that has been done in this 
debate to the President of the United States, to General Sheridan, 
and I may say to tlie republican party. I doubt if the history of this 
country has furnished a parallel to the character of declamation and 
arraignment of these high officers upon grounds so false, frivolous, and 
causeless. • My colleague, on the day after the transactions of the 4th 
of January, hastily introduced a resolution, addressed to the President, 
not couched in the usual language of courtesy, calling for official in- 
formation in regard to matters that had occiu'red in Louisiana on that 
day. No objection was made to its passage, but only that it should be 
put in the usual form. At once a heated debate occurred in which 
language of the most violent character was uttered, perhaps by none 
more than the generally calm and dignified Senator from Delaware, 
[Mr. Bayard.] When I come to look over his speech and notice the 
marked language uttered by him, and compare it with the actual 
facts now before us, I must express my amazement that he should 
have uttered such language upon even the alleged facts tlieu before 
him, and especially in the absence of all official information or state- 
ments from the high officers lie arraigns. In speaking of General 
Sheridan the Senator uttered this language : 

Now, sir, I ask the Senate and the country to listen to the tone of this officer and 
see, when you have read his dispatches to the Administration here, who shall say 
whether he is even fit to breathe tlie air of a republican government. 

Again he says: 

Ah, Mr. President, if there was the tone that under other administrations ani- 
mated the Executive of this country, he would never sign his name again as Licu- 
tenant-General of tlio United States Anuy. 

In other words, General Sheridan is denounced not only as unfit to 
breathe the air of a republican government, but as liaving committed 
an act of such moral turpitu(b}, such gross outrage, that he ought at 
once to be dismissed from the service of the United States as Lieu- 
tenant-General of the Army. So my ]ionoral)le friend in tlie lieat ol' 
the excitement of this debate has arraigned the President of the 
United States in language scarcely less severe. He says : 

There is not in tliat State one ease of abuse of power, of peculation, robbery, 
and filthy dishonesty, with whicli the history of its government is tilled in tlie 
last two years, in wliich his displeasure has ever been signified by the reiuoval of 
an improper ofticial, not one word of rebuke. 



Again, sir, he says : 

The President of the United States was advised of it ; he was kept well informed 
of it, and his semi-official utterances, made known to the i)eoiile, were that, no 
matter what frauds should bo accomplished V>y this boanl, they should be main- 
tained at every cost, or that "somebody should be hurt" in case interference was 
attempted with their nefarious proceedings. 

Again he says of the President and General Sheridan : 
"WTiere do we see them now 1 Overthrown and cast down by the furious lawless- 
ness, by the unlawful ambition, of these two officials whom I have named, the 
creature and the creator. 

Such is the language used by the Senator from Delaware about 
the President of the United States and the Lieuteuant-General of the 
Army. 

My friend from Missouri [Mr. Scititrz] also was in hot haste to 
pass judgment against these high officers and the republican party. 
After near one week's debate the resolution was adopted calling on 
the President for information. Up to that hour the President's voice 
had not been heard; the Senate was in utter ignorance of the mate- 
rial facts in this controversy until the message came in ; and yet my 
friend, not satisfied with the declamation that had been uttered, 
eagerly entered the lists before the President could possibly reply to 
our call, and with studied rhetoric, carefully written and conned 
over, which must have consumed in preparation all the time that 
elapsed since the events of the 4th of January — refusing to wait, say- 
ing at the outset of his remarks that we know enough already to 
characterize the transactions of the 4th of January — not waiting for 
the very information that we all voted to call for, entered the debate 
and joined in the accusations. Sir, he would not have done this to 
the meanest culprit that walks your streets ; and yet he would thus 
array, try, and condemn his fellow-soldier, without a hearing and 
without the facts. Sir, when I heard his statement of facts, I knew 
at once that his argument, based upon such a statement, was utterly 
unreliable and itndeserving of any consideration whatever. Read the 
first page or two of his speech, containing his statement of facts — 
the basis upon which his argument rests; note the omissions of 
material facts now known to us and the distortions of other facts; 
contrast this statement with the real facts now communicated to us, 
and the gross injustice of his arraignment becomes so paljiable that 
no reply to it is necessary. It will stand as additional evidence of 
his ability, •'ud also as a monument of hasty but gross injustice to 
high officers of the Government, his compatriot soldier, and to tho 
republican party that has honored him with all the trusts that it 
could confer ux»on him. 

Nor was this injustice confined to these halls. The same arraign- 
ments extended as if ]»y i)reconcert all over tlie United States. The 
governors of States sent forth their views on this subject in mes- 
sages to Legislatures. They would not wait for the ordinary current 
of events. I have here an extract from the message of Governor Par- 
ker, of New Jersey, in which he denounces the action of the President 
of the United States as a usirri)ation, u}>on alleged facts totally at 
variance with all the material facts now known to us. But tlie most 
remarkable production is a speech made by Governor Allen, of Ohio. 
I shall not say liow far this speech is colored by the peculiar circum- 
stances under which it was made, at a banquet given on the Hth day 
of January, when he as an old Jackson Democrat probably felt very 
buoyant and very happy. In that speech he is reported by a friendly 
paper in speaking of Loui.siana as saying: 



The whole of the vote was cast ; a conservative majority was elected. Some 
dispute as to the returns of the election arose, as has been the case hundreds of 
times. This dispute, under the constitution and the laws, could only be settled by 
the legislative body which the people had elected. How was it settled ? It was 
settled in the old way of desjiotisni, settled by an armed body, settled by the Army 
of the United St.iti'.s paid liy your taxes, settled by a man who was ordered there 
Jor hislawless military drujxitiain — 

Alluding to General Sheridan — 

And now, after having turned out enough of the elected members of the tri- 
umphant party to give to the niinoiitvthe control of the law-making power of that 
State, he wants to make a big. job, and he telegraphs to the President of the United 
States that every white man in tin- three fitates is a bandit and outlaw, and in order 
to get rid of them by a short, ([uick (wocess, so that there will be no trouble in the 
future, he wanted to pursue ])n(isc'ly the course Corneliii.s Sylla pursiuil with tii- 
umphant party, for he slaughtered One hundred thousand citizens of the other 
party. Having done the deed he was found dead, rotten in his bed from head to foot 
and eaten up with worms. 

That is the opinion of Governor Allen of General Grant and Gen- 
eral Sheridan. But that in not all. To fan the excitement a meeting 
in the great commercial city of our country was suddenly held and 
organized under a call that was a palpable falsehood, and is now 
shown by the message to be a palpable fasehood. Tlie statement 
made in that call was as follows : 

The legislative body of a sister State, peaceably assembled, has been broken into 
and dispersed by Federal troops acting under orders from the President of the 
United States. 

Every affirmative proposition in this call is an absolute falsehood, 
admitted now to be .so, shown to be so by the message of the Presi- 
dent of the United States ; and yet upon this call, in the heat and ex- 
citement of the moment, able men, men who stand high in the confi- 
dence of the people of this country, met in public meeting at the 
Cooper Institute and denounced General Grant and all authority. I 
believe that the time will come when some of the gentlemen who par- 
ticipated in that meeting will deeply regret this gross injustice that 
under the heat of excitement, created by false information and for 
political effect, was done by them. 

Now, sir, what was the occasion of all this denunciation ? "WTiat 
caused this commotion? We have now the facts. They are stated 
in the message of the President of the United States and also in the 
various documents which have been spread before tlie public. We 
know the height and depth and breadth of the ofl'ense that was 
committed on the 4th of January in New Orleans. What has the 
President done that was illegal or wrong? What act or order of his 
is complained of? What power has he exercised that was not plainly, 
palpal)ly his duty? He ordered some of the troops to New Orleans 
to preserve the public peace and to suppress domestic violence. This 
was done upon the legal requisition of the governor of Louisiana. 
He was as ignorant as we were of what was done there. He gave no 
order or direction which contemplated what was d(me. He sought 
to avoid the use of troops in Louisiana, and in August last withdrew 
them. The result was an armed and treasonable overtlirow of the 
government of one of the States. By the general .•i])i)r(>val of the 
people of the United States he suppressed that rebellion and restored 
the State government, and that without shedding a drop of blood. 
The troops were left there to preserve the public j)eac(! and were 
appealed to and relied ui)on by botli parties. Such was his offending 
and no more, and for this he was arraigned upon false information 
by honorable Senators, governors, and citizens. For this he is (!om- 
pared with Sylla and all the brutal tyrants of ancient and modern 
times. 



6 

And how about Sheridan? What had he to do with the events of 
the 4th of January ? Absohitcly nothinj^. He was present as a sjjec- 
tator, just as the connnittee of the House was present, lit' had au- 
thority by virtue of Ills rank to assume command, but he did not do 
so, for ho did not anticipate the lawless seizure by Wiltz and his con- 
federates of the organization of the house of representatives of 
Louisiana. It was not nntil nine o'clock that night, when actual 
fighting was imminent, that he assumed command. The next day 
he sent to the President indignant telegrams, but these were no part 
of the events of the 4th of January, and I will have occasion to refer 
to them further on. 

And yet Grant and Sheridan are accused of dispersing a legal 
Legislatm-e by the Army of the United States in such hot haste tliat 
they would not wait to know the facts, and with such language of 
vituperation as would be used against the basest criminals, and by 
Senators, governors, and citizens who have characters at stake. Sir, 
they have overdone this business, and the sober second thought of 
just men will turn these aecusations against the accusers. 

Now let lis examine what did occur in New Orleans on the 4th of 
January last ; and we have two prominent facts to deal with : first, 
the illegal, violent, and revolutionary seizure by Wiltz and the minor- 
ity of the house of representatives of Louisiana of that house and its 
organization; and, second, the expulsicm by General De Trobriand, an 
officer of the Army of the United Statos, acting tinder the orders of 
Governor Kellogg, of five men claiming to be members of that house, 
but having no right to participate in its organization. This is the 
(jravamen of the charge against that officer — the whole of it. 

Let us look now a little more closely at the law which governed the 
organization of that house. A material and vital question in this 
controversy is wdiether that house was organized or in any sense a 
legal legislative house at the time the expulsion of the five alleged 
members took place. I understand my colleague to affirm that it 
was. I deny it ; and there is one material question in this case. 
If that was a legal assembly, a house of representatives authorized, 
and those men had a right to participate and vote — if it was then duly 
and legally authorized as a house of representatives, I would admit 
that the conduct of General De Trobriand was totally unjustifiable 
and that Governor Kellogg had no right to disperse them, and that 
no order from any authority whatever could interfere with the organ- 
ization or -^th (he conduct or action of that house once legally 
organized. But there is the question 

Mr. TIIURMAN. Allow me to interrupt my colleague for a mo- 
ment. He says that is all the question. 1 say it was organized ; but 
that is a matter for discussion hereafter. Does my colleague mean 
to affirm that, whether that organization Avas irregular or regular, 
any irregularity atithorized an officer |of the Army to enter and take 
<mt five claimants to vseats, and men who had been elected to that 
body, some of them by a majoi-ity of over 1,000 votes ? Where is 
the authority for the interference of the Army, whether the organi- 
zation was regular or irregular? 

Mr. SIIEKMAN. I w'ill give my colleague my precise view of it 
in my own order of time and in the order of events, and he will 
see before I get through exactly what my opinion is on all these 
points. 

He alleges as the basis of this complaint that the house of repre- 
sentatives was duly and legally organized as a legislative body when 
these five men were ejected, and that these five men had a right to 



participate in that organization. Tliat brings me to the considera- 
tion of the election law of the State of Louisiana. This law has been 
so often read that I do not think it necessary for me to read it again. 
It is sufficient to say that the law of Louisiana is like the law of most 
of the States, and that under the law of Louisiana a retui'ning board 
was organized comx^osed of five men — in this case I am told of two 
democrats and three republicans, all of whom but one, I believe, were 
natives of the State of Louisiana — it was organized according to law, 
and it had the right to pass upon the returns of members. It was the 
duty of this board to make out a list of the members, and that list 
was handed to the secretary of state : by him it was communi- 
cated to the clerk of the old house, who by law was the temporary pre- 
siding or organizing officer of the body. That list was made out in 
due form. It contained on it one hundred and six names, and of these 
one hundred and six persons one hundred and two appeared in the hall 
of the house at the hour and on the day designated by law. Of these, 
it is admitted on all hands that fifty-two were republicans and fifty 
democrats. This division of the body into two parties is a fact that 
will be recognized by all. It is admitted that fifty-two men, calling 
themselves republicans, met together and nominated as their speaker 
Mr. Hahn, and that fifty met together and nominated as speaker of 
the house Mr. Wiltz. Then we here have the palpable fact that out 
of one hundred and two men whose names were entered upon the 
roll and who answered to their names on that memorable 4th of Jan- 
uary a majority, fifty-two, were republicans, who had nominated Mr. 
Hahn as candidate for speaker, a minority ; of them, fifty, were demo- 
crats, who had named Mr. Wiltz for speaker. Those one hundred and 
two men had the sole right to vote then and there for speaker or for 
anything else. Will my colleague admit that ? 

Mr. THURMAN. No. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I say then he shows the weakness of his argu- 
ment, because now he is driven to say that men who were not entered 
on that roll, whose election was disputed, had a right to go there 
with or without law and vote ; and there is the point — the initial 
point. 

Mr. THURMAN. I do not say that men had a right to go there with 
or without law. I have said no such thing. I say that I will demon- 
strate, if I am capable of demonstrating anything, that those five 
men were as much entitled to their seats, and to participate in that 
organization, as my colleague and myself are entitled to seats on this 
floor ; and I will prove it by tlie constitution and laws of Louisiana. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I have the law of Louisiana here, and we will 
start upon this initial point fair and right. This question is to be 
decided by the law of Louisiana, and by no other law ; and here the 
statute is plain : 

Be it further enactPfl . <f-r., Th.at it shall bo tlio duty of the sppretary of st.ite to 
transmit to the cltik of tho hon.sc, of n^preHentntivcs and the si-cictaiyof the senato 
of the last General Asscnibly a list of the names of sueli ])cisons as, a(<oi(ling to 
the returns, shall have been clceted to cither branch of tlie General Assembly, and 
it shall be the duty of said eh'T-k and .sei'retary to plaee tho names of the rcpi'escuta- 
tives and senators-elect, so funiislu'd, ui)ou tlie roll of the house and of tho senate, 
respectively, and those representatives — 

Now mark it — 
those representatives and scn.afors whoso names .are so placed by Ihc clerk and 
secretary respectively, in accordance with the foregoing provisions, and none other, 
shall be competent to organize tho house of representatives or senate. 

If this is to be tested by tho law of Louisiana, here you have it. 
The one hundred and two men who responded to their names on the 



8 

roll-call on that memorable day were the ouly men in all the -w-orld 
who had a right to participate in the organization of that house ; and 
no man, whether elected or not, no man, whatever might have been 
his title, under the law of Louisiana was entitled to vote there except 
those men who were returned and who answered to their names when 
the roll was called. 

That is the initial point, and as I hear the argument of my colleague 
I do not see how he will get over that. The one hundred and two 
men were present in bodily form ; they answered to their names. 
Fifty-two had already in an informal way designated their choice for 
speaker. Fifty of them had also designated their choice. A majority 
were republicans and in favor of the election of Hahn. What next ? 
By the law of the State of Louisiana the clerk performs certain 
functions in presiding over that body during its organization. This 
law has already been read : 

That for the purpose of facilitating the organization of their respective bodies, 
the secretary of the senate and the chief clerli of the house of representatives shall 
hold over and continue in one otlice from one term of the General Assembly to 
another, and until their successors are duly elected and qualitied. 

I do not rest my position solely upon this law, because the precise 
character and duties of tlie clerk are not defined. And I do not dis- 
cuss this case upon technicalities. I rest it tipon the fundamental 
principle that the majority had the power in that body to control its 
organization, to elect its speaker, to elect its clerk, to control the 
organization, and that nobody else had the right to appear there until 
other members were admitted legally and formally after the organi- 
zation was perfected. Whether the clerk was to preside or not could 
not change the right of the majority to organize the house, though 
his right to preside was an important provision to secure a regular 
and orderly organization. The law of the State of Louisiana, like the 
law of Congress, like the law of many of the States, thus provided 
for a temporary presiding officer in order to guard against the very 
evils that have grown out of the attempted usurpation of Wiltz. But 
the fundamental and controlling principle was the right of the ma- 
jority of those named on the roll and then present to decide who 
should be speaker cannot be questioned. But, sir, what occurred ? The 
roll was called, and then suddenly, without notice, by preconcert, a 
man by the name of Wiltz was nominated by, I suppose, a member of 
the house as temporary speaker, an officer unknown to the law of 
Louisiana. Suddenly, without a legal vote, he rushed up to the chair, 
seized the gavel, and declared himself temporary speaker of that body. 
At once there was a call for the vote. By what vote was he elected ? 
Did anybody vote for him more than the forty-nine other democrats 
beside himself ? No man pretends it. Any man who says that there 
is any evidence, by inference or otherwise, that Wiltz was elected by 
the majority of that assemblage there who were entitled to vote, says 
what is plainly and palpably false. Of the one hundred and two men 
whose names wore on the roll, Wiltz never received, by shout, by 
sanction, by uplifted hand, or in any way, the votes of more than 
forty-nine others besides his own. That we all know ; and yet against 
the known wish of the majority, already ascertained in an informal 
way, he went up and seized possession of the chair, took the gavel, 
drove the clerk away, and assumed authority there. 

Let us go a little further. Who voted for him? Does my colleague 
say that the republicans voted for Wiltz? No. He may say tliat 
these five men voted for him, but the law of Louisiana declared that 
they should not participate in the organization. They had no right 



9 

to vote, aud he could not possiltly have received any but the forty- 
nine votes of his associates aud his own vote, fifty in all. Who de- 
clared him elected? Nobody. He declared himself elected. He was 
a usurper from the very begiuniug. By what authority did he act? 
By the authority of violence, by the authority of impudence, by the 
authority of the minority, and not the authority of the majority. 
The majority of the names on that roll, aud who had the right to 
control that organization, never voted for him. He never was elected 
speaker even of that temporary orgajiization. The facts upon this 
point are stated in various sources of information. I am glad to say 
that on this point no one of them varies. They are all of the same 
bearing. The statement made in the telegram of General Sheridan 
is borne out in every particular by all the other statements which 
have been made and submitted to Congress. 

There is one principle in this Government which I think my col- 
league will agree with me upon, aud that is that in this Government 
of the people, by the people, and for the people, the majority must 
rule. Here was a designated body of one hundred and two men 
authorized by law to do a particular thing, to organize that house. 
Any successful overthrow of that majority is a denial of the very 
basis aud corner-stone of our republican institutions. Now let us see 
how important this elementary principle of our Government is. I 
will ask the Secretary to read one or two paragraphs from Cushing's 
Manual on rarliamentary Law. 

The Secretary read as follows : 

115. In all collective bodies of men, assembled and acting together for the pur- 
pose of deliberating and deciding upon any subject, or for the purpose of electing 
to any office, it is an admitted piincii)le that whatever is done or agreed to by the 
greater number shall stand as the act or the will of the whole. This principle assumes , 
as its basis, the absolute and perfect eqiuility of all the individuals, one -with 
another, who eryoj- the right of suffrage, in the possession of the elements essential 
to the determination of any act to be done, or to the formation of any judgineiit to 
be pronounced, or to the effecting of any election to be made, as the act, judgment, 
or choice of the whole. 

116. This equality being conceded and, as the foundation of a system of govern- 
ment, it can neither be denied in fact nor questioned in principle — it is easy to 
conclude, tirst, that the knowledge and wisdom of the greater number — taken 
promiscuously, will be superior to the knowledge an<l wisdom of'any smaller num- 
ber of the body of men ; and, secondly, that as whatvver is done or resolved by the 
greater number alTects and operates upon the individuals themselves composing it 
equally with tin- otliers, that which is so done must necessarily possess the quality 
of justice in a higher degree than the actor resolution of any siualler number would 
be likeli* to poSsess. It is upon these grounds that the common sense of mankiud 
recognizes the authority of the majority as the only solid foundation of all popular 
government. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I also ask the Secretary to read on page 167, sec- 
tions 412 and 414. 

The Secretary read as follows : 

412. The rule of decision, in all councils and deliberative a.s8emblie8 whose 
members are e<iual in point of right, is that thowill of the greater nnnib(>r of those 
present and voting— the assembly being duly constituted— is the will of the whole 
body. Uence wliatever is regularly agreed upon by a majoritj' of the members 
of a legislative assembly is a thing "done and past "by that 'body. Where the 
assembly is equally divided, tliere is, of course, not a m.ij'ority in favorof the prop- 
osition which is put to vote, aud that proposition is consequently decided in the 
negative." 

[At this point the honorable Senator yielded for an adjournment.] 



Friday, January 22, 1875. 
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. President, the principles involved in the 
Louisiana case are as important as any that liave been discussed in 
the Senate of the United States since the foundation of the Govern- 



10 

meut. Their gravity cannot be overstated or overestimated; and 
tlierel'ore I do not re<i;ret that some little time has elapsed since this 
discussion commenced and that more time will still ehqtse before any 
vote can bo had or any prat'tical measure affectinj^ the state of affairs 
in Louisiana be adojtted. I think I can properly invoke on the part 
of the Senate of the United States a spirit of fairness and calmness 
in discussing a question that is so exciting. 

If this question cainiot be here seriously and calmly considered, it 
can be nowhere. It is manifest that the excited parties to this con- 
test in the State of Louisiana* are rather in a condition of war, of 
force, of violence, than a condition of calm discussion. The general 
tone of the public prints throughout the country is not one that in- 
dicates a fair and proper decision of this question. If it cannot be 
decided here without heat or animosity, it can be nowhere. 

When on Saturday last I gave way to an adjournment, I had called 
the attention of the Senate to a rule of law which is fundamental in 
its nature and must be the corner-stone of all republican govern- 
ment — that is, that the majority must rule. This law applies not 
only to the electoral college, to the votes among the people, but to 
all assemblies, religious, clerical, or lay. It is the foundation of the 
parliamentary law of all assemblages of meji in any capacity what- 
ever. Mr. Gushing, the well-known writer upon this subject, in the 
extracts which I had read at the close of my remarks last week, lays 
dow^n this principle in very clear and strong language, and it is re- 
repeated in many parts of his work. 

The first question always is, Who compose the constituent body of 
which the majority must rule ? That is a question that in this case, 
it seems to me, is settled by clear law in the State of Louisiana ; that 
is, that the persons named on a list prepared by a returning board 
organized under the State law, and containing on it one hundred and 
six names, of whom one hundred and two responded to their names 
on the roll-call on the 4th of January. That was the constituent 
body. No one had a right to vote unless on that roll ; the law of 
Louisiana is clear and explicit that none other than those named on 
that list could vote. Of the one hundred and two who answered to 
their names fifty-two were known to be republicans and fifty dem- 
ocrats. 

Here we have an initial point that my colleague seemed to dispute; 
but I think upon further reliection he will not dispute that no one 
could A'ote except those named on this list. Of those named in the 
list one hundred and two were present. Those whose seats Avere con- 
tested could not vote, because by the language of the law of the State 
of Louisiana "none other" than those returned by the returning 
l)oard could vote, and these five were not only not returned as mem- 
bers, but they were ox])ressly named as contestants or claimants to 
seats, and their claims were referred to the house when organized. 

Then the next question is, how is the majority of this body of one 
huudi'ed and two members then present to be ascertained ; and here 
again there is no doubt about the law^ By parliamentary law, in the 
absence of constitutional or statute law, the majority may be ascer- 
tained either by voice, by a division, by tellers, or by a vote by yeas 
and nays. In the old Grecian assemblies generally the loudest voices 
carried the day. So in more modern parliamentary assemblies, even 
in Enghuid, they have not yet a well-considered manner of ascertain- 
ing the sense of the majority. There the usual vote is by tellers, by 
persons on one side passing out of one lobby and those on the other 
side out of another, and the votes being ascertained in this way the 



11 

result is aunor.iiccd by tlie sjieaker. But iu this Governmeut of ours, 
from the time of the framing of the Coustitution to tliis hour, there 
has been one fixed, immutable rule, tliat is now, I believe, prescribed 
by the constitiition of every State of the Union, that the only proper 
way in a disputed case to ascertain the wish of the majority is by a 
yea and nay vote. Therefore it is that iu the Constitution of the 
United States it is provided tluit a small portion of the body may at 
any time demand tlie yeas and nays. In the constitution of the State 
of Louisiana this right is expressly secured to any two members ; and 
this right is important not only to the minority in fixing the responsi- 
bility of the majority and of the members composing it, but it is also 
important to the mnjority, because it is the only correct mode of 
ascertaining who constitute the majority. This is the only way of 
passing laws or having a fair vote on any contested i^roposition. 

We find this fundamental rule laid downiu Cushing's Manual, and 
I will ask the Secretary to read tlie paragraph that I send to the desk 
marked on this subject, to show the universality and importance of 
this rule. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows : 

5. Of taking the question hy yeas and nays. 

1493. It is provided in almost iill tliii American constitntluns tliat tlie yeas and 
nays of the members of onr Iciiislative bodies, on.any quewtiun jiemlint; betdic them, 
ehall be taken and recorded in their journal on the demand of a certain nnmbvT of 
the members present, or of a certain proportion of theii' number; but no mode is 
therein pointed out for ascertaining whether that form of taking; the question is de- 
manded by the requisite number. This is left to be done by putting the question, 
on the demand of a single member, in the ordinary manner. 

Mr. SHEEMAN. To show that this rule of parliamentary law is a 
part of the constitution of the State of Louisiana, and is the con- 
trolling element in this question, I ask that a brief article of the con- 
stitution of Louisiana, article 30, be read. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

Art. 36. Each hon.se of the General Assembly shall keep and publish weekly a 
jonrnal of its proceedings ; and the yeas and nays of the menibeis on any question, 
at the desire of any two of them, shall bo entered on the journal. 

Mr. SHEEMAN. This rule of parliamentary and con.stitutional 
law has been deemed so important that it is prescribed in every State 
of this Union. It is prescribed as to all branches of the Government 
of the United States. It is a fundamental principle, by which alone 
the will of the majority can bo ascertained. Now, test the usurpation 
of Wiltz by this simple, plain, constitutional rule; and is it not ap- 
parent to every man, unless he is guided by mere partisan feeling, 
that the conduct of Wiltz on tliat occasion was a bold, gbiring usur- 
pation, which would have justi (led the majority in having gone up ami 
torn him from his seat. Wliat did Wiltz do? I will now, in order to 
quote from documents not contested by any one, read the conduct of 
Wiltz as given to us by a sub-committee of a committee of the House 
of Representatives, composed of Mr. Fosteji, Mr. Piiklps, and Mr. 
Potter, a document that I have no doubt will be assented to on this 
point as the testimony of impartial and disinterested witiu^ssca giving 
a narrative of what they saw. I ask the Secretary to read the marked 
passages in this statement. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows : 

The instant the clerk finished the roll-call, soveial members rose to their feet, 
iiut the floor was .suecessfully Iield by Mr. Hillien, wlio said that he non)iiiate(l L. 
A. Wilt/, as temporary eliiiiTi'iiiiii. Tlie ch^rk suggested that: tin- li'nal motion was 
to vU-i-X a speaker. Mv. J'.illieii himself, paying no attention to the clerk, proceeded 
hurriedly to put his own motion, which wasreci^ived by loud yeas, and followed by 
aa loud nays, and declared it caniod. Mr. Wiltz sprang instantly to the platform, 



12 

took from the clerk the Ravel, was quickly sworn in by Justice Houston, who fol- 
lowed him to the platform, and then rapped the house, which, during this time, had 
been in great con fusion, into a temimrary quiet, ilr. Wiltz, as temporary chair- 
inan, administeied tlieoatli to tlie niemliersen inasse, who rose to receive it. Some 
members made amotion to elect Terzevant clerk. Wiltz ])ut the motion and de- 
clared it carried. Terzevaut at once came forward and took the clerk's chair; 
imine<liat(ly after, and with the same haste, a Mr. Flood was elected sergeant-at- 
arms, and at once, whether on motion or not your committee do not rememl)er, a 
number of assistant sergeants-at -aims wer(> a])] pointed, who prom ptlyapiieaied wear- 
ing badges, on which wei-e printed "assistiiiit sci-gi-niil at-arms." l)'/n7c the above- 
mentiont'd motions viere being j^iit, niriiil>rrs ol^jfrteii and called/or the yeas and nays, 
all (if vhich Iran disreijardrd and. priinnii ix-ed nut of order by the aetlnn elminnan. 
Colonel Lmrrll, a republican ineinber, mode the jmint of order that the eniistitiilinn of 
the State alloii'ed any tiro ineinbers to eall/or tin- oeasniid nayson any niotinn, but the 
temporary elioir man derided the point irax nut frll tnl.-rn until a inotion for jterrna- 
nent organization. ?\'ext. a motion to go into an i-lection for a permanent organiza- 
tion was ofl'ei-<'d. and declared prematiuc. Aauiiist this ruling the rejioblicans pro- 
tested. A motion to seat the, demociatii- nieintn-is allcgi-d to l)e electi-d in the four 
parishes, refeired to the Legishiture, wa^ iiiniinliati-ly nia<le and carried. During 
this stage there was nuich disorder. TJte republican members protested, but their 
protests were disregarded. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. President, this statement shows that "Wiltz 
openly trampled under foot the constitution of the State of Louisiana, 
parliamentary law, and all laws of fairness and decency. I have been 
amazed that while my honorable colleague, [Mr.TnuRMAN.] my friend 
from Delaware, [Mr. Bayard,] and the Senator from Missotiri [Mr. 
ScHUKz] were denouncing General Sheridan and General Grant for 
doing the acts complained of, not one single word of compaint has 
been uttered by any of these gentlemen in regard to Mr. Wiltz ; and 
yet Mr. Wiltz plainly and palpably violated the law of Louisiana, the 
constitution of Louisiana, the principles of popular government, and 
the very basis and structure of republican government. 

Mr. BAYARD. I desire to say to my honorable friend that we did 
not consider that we were sitting upon the regularity or the irregu- 
larity of Mr. Wiltz's action. The point we were upon was this : That 
whether he was regular or irregular, it was not the part of the Presi- 
dent of the United States, or the governor of Louisiana, or the mili- 
tary forces of the United States to decide. 

Mr. SHERMAN. This shows the glaring unfairness of the state- 
ments of these honorable gentlemen. Tliey denounce the President 
of the United States and General Sheridan without knowing the 
actual facts ; and yet, knowing the actual facts of tliis bold usurpa- 
tion, this direct trampling upon every law that governs the subject, 
they never uttered one single word of reproach against Mr. Wiltz. 
I will say now that the act of Mr. Wiltz is a crime more danger- 
ous in its consequences than the murder of a hundred men, or of a 
thotisand men. The idea that a body of men with great authority, 
with power to make laws for Louisiana, should be thus controlled is 
monstrous. Suppose the Senate of the United States should meet 
together, atidthat suddenly without a vote some one would rush to that 
chair and put questions, and wlien inotests were made, when the 
yeas and nays were demanded, and tliose securities invoked which 
were intended to guard the rights of the minority as well aa the 
majority, tliat man sitting in that chair sliould disregard the Consti- 
tution of the United States, refuse to allow the yeas and nays to be 
called, refuse to put a question in the face of protests — I ask you 
what would be your indignation against such an atrocity? Would 
not the man Avho would thus trample under foot constitution and law 
meet at once with the universal deimnciatiouof all fair-nunded men* 
And yet that man Wiltz, when he seized upon the chair of the 
speaker of that house without authority of law, in plain disregard 



13 

of the -will of the majority, knowing at the time that he would not be 
voted for by a majority, having been nominated already by forty-nine 
men, when" fifty-two men had nominated another gentleman, went 
there and refused to put a question, when, under the constitution of 
Louisiana, members arose and demanded the yeas and nays, called for 
the roll, and did all that men could do in the presence of an unlawful 
violence, he disregarded these calls, he trampled under foot that 
constitution that he had just a moment before irregularly sworn to. 
He violated his oath, taken there not two minutes before this thing 
occurred. He trampled upon the rights of the majority, usurped its 
authority, committed perjury if his oath was valid, and introduced a 
scene of lawless disorder, outrage, and wrong ; and yet this act of 
Wiltz, admitted on all hands to be illegal, in violation of the con- 
stitution, revolutionary, destructive of the very foundation and fun- 
damental principles of republican government, in the face of law, 
written and divine, has not caused one word of reproach, not one 
word of honest indignation, from those so ready to denounce others. 
And yet I say to you now, with full knowledge and with full iuvesti- 
gation of this matter, that the crime of Wiltz — yea, the crime of 
Wiltz — to say nothing of his perjury, to say nothing of his disregard 
of the fundamental principles that he had only a moment before 
sworn to, was infinitely greater than the murder in cold blood of a 
hundred men, because it struck at the liberty of the whole people. 
If the principle which guided Wiltz should become the rule and 
habit of ourlegislative assemblies in this coimtry, then popular liberty 
is at an end and republican governments are overthrown. If our 
Legislatures, oiu- houses of representatives and senates, are to be organ- 
ized by this lawless violence and disregard of constitutional and 
fundamental law, then all your boasted republics have already dis- 
appeared, and are not worth the parchment ujjon which their con- 
stitutions are written. 

And yet that was the scene which was continued from twelve o'clock 
on that day until General De Trobriand appeared there and took out 
five men who had no right to participate in that organization. Com- 
pared with what was done by others in any view you may take of 
this question, the crime of Wiltz ought to stamp him with infamy. 
His crime is much worse than the crime of Cromwell, who dispersed 
the Rump Parliament, or any one else who interfered with lawless 
violence in the organization of a legislative body. His crime must 
be admitted to be lawless, revolutionary, bold, and desperate.; and 
by law any man who was injured might have gone up to that chair 
and dragged him from his seat by violence, and the law would have 
maintained that action. When a man appears as speaker by the con- 
sent of the majority, even if irregularly ascertained, even if it is not 
ascertained in accordance with parliamentary law in the nu)de and 
manner pointed out, that is one thing ; but when a man, knowing 
that he represents the minority, goes and seizes ui)on tliis power, de- 
nies to a majority their right to govern, deprives every one of the 
members of that body of the right to call for the yeas and nays, law- 
lessly and violently maintaining the power that he lias tlius seized, 
I say that he is guilty of a crime which would justify any member 
of that body to go up and drag him from his seat. 

If Wiltz's conduct is not entirely lawless and revolutionary, how can 
a majority ever control a political body? How can a majority rule 
either among the people or in legislative halls ? It cannot be done. 
If the minority by their re])rcseutatives in this way can disregaril con- 
stitution and law, there is an end of the idea that a nuijority must rule, 



because here a minority, thronnfli their ajiont, Wiltz, by preconcert 
seized u])on tlie power of the majority and (Uniied to the majority not 
only their right to rnh>, but even the ordinary incidents which are 
granted to a minority, the right to call for the yeas and nays, the right 
to demand the vote. 

Sir, I have read many cases in history where the majority have 
trampled ni)on the rights of the minority. The majority sometimes 
with a bold hand exercise their power. I have participated in cut- 
ting otF debate and in crowding the minority, but never before have 
I read in any history whore a minority usurped the rights of a major- 
ity, and denied the majority even the plainest constitutional rights 
of the minority. 

Mr. STEVElSfSON. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a ques- 
tion? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Certainly. 

Mr. STEVENSON. If the five members who were not on the list, 
but who were returned by the returning board, were regarded as part 
of that Legislature, then was Mr. Wiltz the organ of a minority ? 

Mr. SHERMAN. In the first place, no one can, in the face of the 
law of Louisiana, claim that those five men could participate in that 
organization, because the law of Louisiana expressly recognizes the 
fact, and so declares, that none others should participate except those 
members returned by the returning board. 

Mr. MORTON. They were not returned by the board. 

Mr. STEVENSON. I say they were retunied. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Not at all. 

Mr. STEVENSON. I say it on authority. The rule of law is that 
you cannot read part of an instrument without the whole. You have 
<luoted from the report of the House committee that went down there, 
and I assert that they say they were returned and were legally 
elected. 

Mr. SHERMAN. That committee say that they perhaps were 
legally elected and the board did wrong in excluding them from the 
list ; but they do not say that they were returned by that board. 

Mr. STEVENSON. Then the argument of my honorable friend 
from Ohio puts the liberties of the people and this great right of suf- 
frage in'the hands of a self-constituted board. 

Mr. SHERMAN. My friend from Kentucky is a little too excited. 
On the contrary that board was constituted by his own political 
friends, '^ho Warmoth law, as it was called, expressly provided for 
that board. 

Mr. HAMILTON, of Maryland. Will my honorable friend allow 
mo to correct him also? 

Mr. SHERMAN. I hope I am not to be cut up in my remarks in 
this wav. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Ohio yield to the 
Senator from Maryland ? 

Mr. SHERMAN. I would rather not have so many interruptions 
at once. 

Mr. HAMILTON, of Maryland. Will the Senator not allow me ? 

Mr. SHt^RMAN. I hope the Senator will permit me to proceed. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Senator from Ohio is entitled to the 
floor. 

Mr. SHERMAN. That law of Louisiana is like the law of many of 
the States. It turns over to a select body of men the i)ower to pass 
upon the returns, in the first instance, and the same law declares that 
their action shall be final until tlio house is organized, and that the 



15 

persons returned by tliat board and none others shall participate in 
that organization. Another reply to my honorable friend from Ken- 
tucky is this, that Wiltz himself conceded this. He admitted the 
fact, he acted upon it, that those five men had no right to vote. 
Otherwise why deny the yeas and nays ? Why deny all the constitu- 
tional rights of a majority ? Why refuse to take a vote ? Why sud- 
denly before the organization by a vote admit the five members ? 
Who admitted them? Could they vote in their own case? But I will 
come to that again. To say that these five men had a right to par- 
ticipate, as is claimed, is entirely absurd ; and Wiltz himself never 
baaed their right to vote there upon such a claim as that. On the 
contrary he undertook to give them the right by a vote subsequently 
had, and there was even then a refusal to take the vote by yeas and 
nays upon the admission of these members. 

Mr. STEVENSON. The question which I submitted to my honor- 
able friend was that if they were legally elected members of the Leg- 
islature — not entering into the discussion, admitting that they were 
legally elected members of that Legislature — then was Wiltz the 
speaker of a minoritv ? 

Mr. SHERMAN. No, sir. 

Mr. STEVENSON. We will discuss hereafter the question of their 
denial of the right to seats. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I will discuss hereafter what rights those men 
had. They had a right to present their claims as members, to be 
admitted if a majority of those legally entitled to vote would allow 
them to be admitted ; but I will come to that in a moment. My friend 
from Kentucky goes along a little faster than I do. 

Now, Mr. President, the signal-gun of all that followed was this 
usurjiation by Wiltz and the denial to the majority of a right that is 
conceded to a small minority in every legislative body, the right to 
call the yeas and nays. But for this unlawful conduct of Wiltz 
there would have been no interference with the Legislature of Louisi- 
ana. Senators must see that in looking at causes and events you 
trace the whole back to this refusal by Wiltz, this revolutionary vio- 
lence by Wiltz, and his denial to either a majority or minority of the 
plainest rights that anybody possesses as a member of a legislative 
body. This was the signal-gun, and all that followed was but the 
natural and necessary sequence of this one event. Every single 
thing that was done after that resulted from this lawless and revolu- 
tionary violence. Therefore when you denounce men who partici- 
pated in the subsequent proceedings, why not denounce this act, the 
beginning of this revolutionary violence? There was where I thought 
my honorable friend from Missouri, in his carefully-])rt'pared state- 
ment, failed to do his duty. He promised that calmness and fairness 
should guide him in making what he said was to be a parting speech 
to the Senate, and yet he did not put any stress or even state the 
facts in regard to the UHur])ation of Wiltz and his denial of the yea 
and nay vote which was the signal, the beginning and the cause of 
every act that followed. 

Mr. SCHURZ. Will the Senator from Ohio permit me to interrupt 
him for a moment ? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Yok, sir; as I alluded to the Senator. 

Mr. SCHURZ. When the Senator s])eaks about the cause and the sig- 
nal of the disturbance, is he willing to accept the rei)ort of the House 
sub-committee sent down to Louisiana to investigate things, as true ? 

Mr. SHERMAN. I was called oil" a moment, and did not hear the 
remark of the Senator from Missouri. 



16 

Mr. SCHURZ. I was poiiig to ask, is the Senator, in speaking of 
the cause and sij^nal of the disturbance, willing to take the report of 
the sub-committee sent by the House of Representatives down to 
Louisiana as true ? 

Mr. SHERMAN. I will come to the part the Senator alludes to, 
presently. 

Mr. SCHURZ. I merely put that question to the Senator. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I do not wish to refer to that now. I have no 
doubt at all that the majority of tliat body had a right to ])ass upon 
the claims and rights of members ; but I will speak of that here- 
after. 

Mr. SCHURZ. I do not refer to that. If the Senator wants to go 
to the bottom of things, then he will have to admit, according to that 
report, that a gross fraud was perpetrated by the returning board 
and that that returning board was, in its very constitution, not ac- 
cording to the constitution and laws of Louisiana, and that there the 
cause of the whole disturbance is to be found. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Does not everybody see the transparent evasion 
of the point I made on the honorable Senator? He makes no answer 
to the allegation I make that he omitted the material facts of this 
whole controversy. 

Mr. SCHURZ. The Senator does not do me justice. I did not omit 
that, for in my statement of the circumstances I said expressly that 
when the question was put with regard to the temporary chairman- 
ship, it was not put by the clerk. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Ah, but that is not the point. 

Mr. SCHURZ. I admitted further that although the organization 
of that Legislature should have been in accordance with tlie statutes 
of the State, yet it was not for a general of the United States Army 
to decide that question. 

Mr. SHER\LAN. The Senator will fail to show me wliere he admit- 
ted that this man, with force ami violence, seized the speaker's chair 
and refused the yeas and nays, which it was the constitutional right 
of any two members of that body to demand. He says now, in order 
to evade this point, which he cannot evade, that I neglected to state 
the conduct of the returning board. I will not neglect to state the 
conduct of the returning board, but shall discuss it in due time, for I 
shall not avoid anything of the kind. 

N'^vv, I say the initial cause of this whole trouble was the illegal 
seizure by Wiltz aiul the minority of that body of the powers of that 
house when, by the law and the constitution of Louisiana, they had no 
right to do it. It was the denial to the majority of the rights that 
are conceded to a minority of two, the refusal to take a vote and the 
attempt to pass upon the right of five men to seats there without the 
right of the majority to vote according to the constitution. And 
here is the whole trouble, and the beginning and the eiul ; and the 
popular voice, always more just even than the Senate of the United 
States, seized at once on this point, and while they might not have 
justified Sheridan in the telegram that I will refer to, or jjcrhaps the 
appearance of the military in that hall, yet they saw at once that 
these men who resorted to violence, who resorted to fraud, who tram- 
pled under foot constitutions aiul laws, were not the persons to make 
technical or carping objections to the iriodo and manner of enforcing 
legal authority an(l overthrowing their lawless usurpation. Those 
who resort to force must ex})ect force. 

Now, Mr. President, I want to show fiirther that this usurpation 
by Wiltz was not acquiesced in at any stage of this controversy. We 



17 

have the statement of General Sheriilau, clear and explicit, concurred 
in by every eye-witness, that every movement made by this rev- 
olutionary body, controlled by Wiltz, was protested aoainst ; the 
yeas and nays were demanded; every oi)i)()si{i(>u was made to it that 
men could peaceably make ; and in my judi;nu'nt his usurpation avouIcI 
have been overthrown by force by the luajority of members then 
present but for the interposition of General De Trobriand. It is ap- 
parent that after an hour or two of lawless seizure the republican 
members, together with outsiders, called the lobby, were about to 
intervene ; and I do believe that but for the intervention of General 
De Trobriand Wiltz would have been torn from that seat, tumbled 
but of it. He had no right there. I appeal to lawyers to say whether, 
if blood had been shed in an attempt by force to drag Wiltz from the 
seat that he usurped, it would not have rested upon his skirts and 
not upon those who by force expelled him. After peaceable means 
were exhausted, how else could they assert their rights as a majority ? 
It is not necessary to discuss this question, for fortunately it was 
avoided. It is sufficient to know that force would have been used by 
the republican members, by the majority of that body having the right 
to that organization, and by those in that hall who sympathized with 
them but for the appeals made by Wiltz himself to the Army of the 
United States to protect him in his usurpation. All the statements 
given to us by eye-witnesses, some of whom I liaA^e conversed with, 
agree that at the moment when the motion was made to call General 
De Trobriand to come in and interfere there was imminent danger of 
an outbreak, when blood would have been shed, and Wiltz himself, 
perhaps, would have been the first victim. There can be little doubt 
that if that request had not been made by Wiltz and by those who 
voted with him for the intervention of the military authorities, a 
scene of bloodshed would have occurred in that hall. Does my 
honorable friend from Missouri doubt it ? I understood from his own 
statement that bloodshed would have resulted ])utfor the interference 
of General Do Trobriand in tlie first instance there to quiet and put 
down disorder. So, sir, the minority, having firmly placed themselves 
in possession unlawfully of the speaker's chair, denying to the major- 
ity all rights whatever, ai)pealed by vote to the Army of the United 
iStfites to protect them by armed force from the power of the ma- 
jority ; then General De Trobriand was by a vote sent for, not as a 
mere citizen or constable, but as an officer of the Army with troops 
at hand in warlike array. A committee waited ui)on him outside, 
brought him in, and he came in with his uniform on, with his sword 
by his side and with his two aids-de-camp. 

Here is another point where my honorable friend [Mr. SciiURZ] 
strangely was led by his feeling rather tiiaii by his sense of calmness 
and justice. ' He describes De Trobriand a)))iearing on the second time 
with his sword by his side, his belt around Jiini, his aids and his bay- 
onets ; but wlven DeTrobiandap])eared in the first instance, according 
to the description of the Senator from Missouri, he appeared as a kind- 
mannered man, a gentleman of pleasing address, to put down lawless 
disturbance, to restore quiet, to pour oil upon water instead of, accord- 
ing to the actual fact, as an Army officer, with his sword at his side, 
with two aids with him, and with men and bayonets right at the door. 

Mr. SCIIURZ. Where does the Senator get that l 

Mr. SHERMiVN. In the telegram. 

Mr. SCHURZ. Turn to it. 

Mr. SHERilAX. I cannot turn to it now, but you will find it in that 
statement. 

2i 



18 

Mr. SCHUKZ. Whose statement ? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Genernl Slieridaii makes tlie staf emeiit that when 
De Troljiiaiul appeared in the tirst instanei^ on tliecMll of the s]teaker 
of the house by a vote, he appeared with his sword at his side, with two 
aids with liim, and with s(ddiera outside. 

Mr. SCHIJRZ. Where (hies the Senator get that in the first instance? 

Mr. SHERMAN. I think it is in General S)ieri(Uiirs dispatches, but 
I will try and satisfy tiio Senator on that point. 

Mr. SCHIJRZ. O, no; I do not eare about it. 

Mr. SHERMAN. 1 will show it to the Senator. The same lan;j;ua{;e 
is used. This is the telegram of General Sheridan: 

Tho excitoiiipnt was uow very great. The actinji; .spcakor rtirtu-tprt tlio sergeant- 
at-arms to ijrevent the egress or ingress of mouibcrs or others, aud several excithig 
scuffles, iu which knives' and pistols were (hawu, took place, aud for a few moiuouts 
it seemed tliat bloodslied would eusue. 

He goes on : 

At this juncture Mr. Bnpic, a democratic member from the paiisli of Orleans 
moved that the military ])ower of the General trovernment be invoked to preserve 
the peace, and that a committee bo appointed to wait upon General De Trobriand, 
the commaniling officer of the United States troops stationed at the State-house, 
and request his assistance in clearing the lobby. 

Here was not a mild-mannered gentleman, as General De Trobiand 
is, called on to act as a peace ofticor or constable, but here was an 
appeal to the military power of the United States, and a call made 
on the connnanding ofdcer, witli Troops then in the presence and iu 
liossession of the State-liouse. Let us go on and see: 

Tho motion was adopted. A committee of five, of whicli !Mr. Uupre was made 
chairman, was sent to wait upon General De Trol>riand, and soon returned with 
that officer, who was accompanied by two of his statf officers. 

The same language was used when he api)eared afterward as when 
he came in lirst. AVhen he was called upon the secoiul time by Gov- 
ernor Kellogg, he went in in the same way with two staflt' otScers, and 
it was not until WiUz resisted his action that he brought in superior 
force to carry out the order under which he was acting. Thus, sir, I 
have shown Von that the revolutionary violence of AViltz w^ould have 
been overthrown by the rightful i)ower of the majority but for tho 
interpositi<m of the Army of tlie United St;'tes. It is true that we 
sliould have had a scene of bloodshed in that chanihcr, for which all 
the blame and all the wrong would have been on tlie part of Wiltz 
and his associates. Tliey were the usurpers ; they were guilty of rev- 
obiti(uiar;"Tiolence; they denied all right to tlie yeas and nays, and 
they refused to take the vote. They refused to obey the law of Louisi- 
iana which required tliat only those named on a certain list should 
vote, and none other. If that violence had been met by violence, 
theirs would have been tlie wrong. They api)ealed to the military 
authority and on their apjieal the military autliority did intervene; 
but here is the ditVerence in tlie two cases: The re])ublicans, who w'ere 
jdainlyin the right at tliis stage of the contest, ol)cycd with kindness 
aud gentleness the remonstrance of General De Troluiand and tliey 
left the hall. They did not recjuire actual force to be shown and a 
milit;iry army to be brought there to compel them to go out ; but they 
left; w-hile on the otlier hand, wlien tln^ same otlicer appeared at 
the request of Governor Kellogg, then Wiltz refused to yield to ap- 
parent force, to tlie olificer of the Army, the same olHcer that he had 
himself appealed to, but demanded that actual force sliould be used 
in order to make a show of resistance. Tlicu it was that the United 
States soldiers were marched into that hall .and live men were taken 
out of it. And when this force was used only to the extent made 



19 

necessary to execute the order tliey fill the land, with the cry of mil- 
itary violence aud usurpation! 

Mr. SCHURZ. I asked the Senator where he got that description 
of General De Trobriand's interference, aud he road from General 
Sheridan's dispatch. I suppose he will have no objection, although I 
attach very little importance to that point, if I just quote the report 
of the House committee upon that : 

A committee was appointed to -vrait on Geueral De Trobriaiul and rciinest Iiis com- 
pliance. Colonel De Tioliviaud soon came to tbebarnnaccomjianied. except by one 
aid, whom he left tlien*. ami then alone approached the speaker. The speaker re- 
fluested him to ask foi- order in the lobby. Colonel De Trobriand did so, aud order 
was then restored. 

Mr. SHERMAN. There is no substantial difference. 

Mr. SCHURZ. I say I do not attach any importance to tliis matter. 

Mr. SHERMAN. The only difference is^ this : AVhen De Trobriand 
^ippeared at the call of Wiltz, the republicans who were making the 
noise and confusion and tlireatening to turn out Wiltz head over heels 
quietly subsided at the appeal of tlie officer of the United States. 
On the other hand, Avlien Kellogg called on the troo])s to put down 
lawless violence, Wiltz, the usurper, the man who had connnitted 
perjury, the man who had started this scene of revolutionary violence, 
would not yield to the request of General De Trobriand. When Gen- 
eral De Trobriand said "Do not compel me to use force j you live gen- 
tlemen come out; do not compel me to use force," Wiltz replied. 
" You must use force ; you shall do it ; not one of these men shall 
leave his seat until you use force ; " and then De Trobriand, like a 
soldier, used only the force necessary to put these men out. Tiicre 
is the difference. De Trobriand in both cases ap.peared as an otffcer 
of the United States, with his sword l)y his side, on duty, in com- 
mand, with a large body of armed soldiers at the door; and he ap- 
peared there in the lirst instance at the call of Wiltz, who liad net 
more right to be in that seat than any one of us had a right to be 
speaker of the house of representatives of Louisiana. 

Mr. THURMAN. I do not wislj to misunderstand my colleague, 
and I should like therefore to ask him now whether I am to under- 
stand him as justifying De Trobriatid's expulsion of those five mem- 
bers? 

Mr. SHERMAN. My colleague ouglit to know me well enough to 
know that he cannot catch me l)y any premature question. I will 
tell him precisely how far I do approve of General De Trobriand's 
conduct before I get through. His question would lead me to a point 
not now befoi'e us. 

I here again repeat the point that the usurpation of Wiltz was 
never for one moment acquiesced in. It was protested against. 
Every parliamentary e.\])cdiont to which even th(^ best ]iarliauien- 
tarians could resort was resorted to to resist that revolutionary vio- 
lence; aud the uuijority would have gone further, and witli thcpower 
^nd right of the majority they A<-ouhl have controlled tluit organiza- 
tion but for the interference of an Army officer with the Army at his 
back; but tliey yielded; and what did they do then '? 

Before I go any furtlicr, wiien GcMieral I)e 'I'r()brinn<l appeared in 
that hall and prnctic;iliy expelled icjiublicau members, bccausi^ tliat 
was the effect of his action on the first call of Wiltz, I ask any Sena- 
tor whether tliat house of rejjresentatives was a lawful house '! Had 
it the power of a house of representatives in any sense of the word? 
Was it a lawful organization f It is impos.sible to say so ; and I ap- 
peal now to Senators who are called upon to consider these facts as 



20 

they are i>i(isento(l to ns to say whetlior or not tin' house of rc^present- 
atives as it existed with Wiltz in the ciiaii', and when De Trol)riand 
appeared and praetieally expelled the majority, Avho were certain to 
3csist the action of the minority — was that alawfnl assemhly in any 
sense of the word '! Palpably they were nsnrpers. If snch a body is 
hiwful in our repnhlican tiovernmcnt, what in the name of Heaven is 
unlawful ! 

Hero is a case where a man without a hiwful vote seized the 
speaker's chair, refused to take the vote, denied thB call of the yeas 
aud nays, swore live men in upon the report of a committee against 
the protests of the majority. There never was a vote from hejrinning 
to end. Sir, in this whole pi'oceeding theni was no constitutional 
vote ; there was no legal vote. There was no organization. There 
was no element of lawful assembly. 

Mr. BAYARD. The Senator has stated that a viva voce rote upon 
amotion to elect a speaker may be decided by the sound. He admits 
that that could be done lawfully. In this case the vira rove vote was 
|)ut by Mr. ISillieu, who liad the floor and maintained it, and Mr. 
Wiltz was cluisen or declared by him to have been chosen, and he 
assumed the chair aud was sworn. Then Mr. Wiltz, having been so 
sworn by an officer recognized by the laws and constitution of Louisi- 
ana to swear him in, administered the oath to the one hundred and 
two members Avho were present. 

]Mr. SHEEMAN. My friend ought not to interpose argument while 
I am on the floor. 

Mr. liAYARD. I beg the Senator's pardon. I will not argue at 
.all; but as he spoke of facts, I was merely reciting facts that made 
that permanent organization, in my opinion, a lawful one. When 
the one hundred aud two mendiers took the oath, by rising, from Mr. 
Wiltz's lips; when their party friends Avho left the city of Washing- 
ton to engineer things, members of the other House, saw some of the 
members sitting down, they went to them and urged them to rise aud 
Take the oath, so as to be inchuled in the temporary organization of 
the house. Then came the call for a permanent organization. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I must insist on going on. Now, since several 
vSenators have rather, I was about to say, abused the courtesy of ask- 
ing mo to yield for a question, I must insist on going on in order. 

Mr. BAYARD. I beg the honorable Senator's pardon if I did so. 
I thought ho asked for the facts, and I merely answered him as I 
thought in order. 

Mr. SHERMAN. All that I asked the Senator was whether in his 
opiniou that organization was lawful, and his answer was "yes," and 
there was the end of it ; and after that I do not think he w\as at liberty 
to state facts in the nature of argument. It isaconnnon practice in the 
Senate, but it is a bad one. No one knows bettiu- than my honorable 
friend that a vira voce vote is never conclusive when there is a dennind 
for the yeas and nays. The demand for the yeas and nays when 
granted supersedes at once the rica voee vote. I have here the state- 
ment of Mr. Fostp:k and of his associates that in every stage, on every 
question that was put, the yeas and nays were called for. Ilere is what 
Mr. Potter and these other gentlemen of the House connnittee say: 

"While the al)ove-iueutioiiod iiintioiis were bi-inii put. uuinbers ol)iccte(l and called 
for tbo yeas and nays, all of wliich was disi\';,'urdod and pronounced ont of order 
by the acting chairman. 

When a viva voce vote is taken and a yea aud nay vote is called for 
there is the end of the viva voce vote ; it is no longer to be regai-ded ; 
it is superseded. We seeythat every day here in our daily business. 



21 

AVheu a vote is called for aud there is inucii or little souud, and any- 
body rises aud calls for the yeas aud nays and they are ordered, that 
is the end of the viva voce A^ote. 

Mr. BAYARD. Was there uot a yea au<l nay vote on the permanent 
organization ? 

Mr. SHERMAN. On every motion, according to the testimony of 
these geutleman, the yeas aud nays were called for but not allowed to 
betaken. And what the Senator calls the vote on permanent organ- 
ization was not put until the majority of members were practically 
expelled, nor until the constituent body was changed by the admis- 
sion of five new members. Suppose the Clerk of the House of Repre- 
sentatives when General Banks was elected Speaker had denied the 
call of the roll until after a permanent organization. Sujipose, when 
I had the honor to be a candidate for Speaker, the Clerk of the House 
at that time had denied the call of the roll to the minority of the body. 
Would it not have created bloodshed and revolution '! Wlio ever 
dreamed of such a thing? The right to call the yeas andaiaysis just 
as important in the preliminary vote as any other. This list is fur- 
nished for the very piM'pose, that the clerk miglit kuow who should 
vote ; aud every vote from the beginning, according to the constitu- 
tion of Louisiana, is protected by the right to the yeas and nays. 
There have been half a dozen times in the history of our country 
where if a yea and nay vote had been denied it would have created 
a revolution in this country. No man can question the fact. When 
Mr. Cobb was elected Speaker over Mr. Winthrop, if the yeas and nays 
had been refused there would have been bloodshed. So when General 
Banks was elected ; so when Mr. Pennington was elected. The yea 
and nay vote is the very beginning, the foundation of republican gov- 
ernment and of parliamentary regular government ; and the denial 
of that right on the oi'ganization was the commencement of this 
trouble in Louisiana. To say that the majority did not resist, did not 
remonstrate, did not appeal, did not demand tlu^ yeas and nays, is an 
allegation that is denied by every man who participated in that body. 
I asked several gentlemen who were witnesses, and th(\v said that in 
every stage, from the very beginning, at the moment AViltz rushed up 
without the question being put so that it could be heard by anybody, 
all these calls were made, made with violence sometimes, but always 
made. So that this proceeding was lawless, revolutionery, by a law- 
less, desiderate, armed mob ; for 1 have no doubt both sides were armed, 
according to the information I liave received. 

After this organization had been perfected, as they say, by Wiltz, 
what was done 1 Then a legislative act wns done. They ]u-o])osed 
to admit five i)ersons to seats as members. Who voted to admit those 
five men ? There is again a conundrum I should like to have my 
honorable friend from Delaware answer at his leisure — who voted to 
admit those five men? They could not vote in their own cases. The 
constitution of Louisiana in this pariicular is like our own Constitu- 
tion. Excluding those five; men, who doubts but v.iiat the majority 
were republicans ? Who claims that a majority voted to admit the 
five ? Who admitted the five men who were sworn in there with the 
solemn sanction of an oath by Wiltz, the usurper ? I ask my col- 
league and the Senator from Delaware, Avho now stand upon the 
right of the (i\e men to vote, Avho voted to admit them ? 'J'lie (jues- 
tion was i)ut aud they wen; admitted, but who voted for it? Not 
the majority, because they were denied the right to vote and the yeas 
and nays were forbidden. It was the minority who admitted tliose 
men in the preliminary organization, and upon that lawless vote, a 



vote faken in jilain ami ]>al])al)!c dt'iiial of tlie, .siriii)]('sl right i)f par- 
lianiciitary law and oi tiie coubtitntion of Louisiana, iive men were 
sworn in and then ijarticipated. First the minority seized upon the 
chair and the organization hy violence, then the same minority with- 
out a vote i)ut in iive more men, and then withoirt a vote elaimed ta 
he the majority, and tiien rode rough-shod over the constitution and. 
laws of that State and all ])iinci)»les of parliamejitary law. It will 
not do. It is an outrage ; and no so])histry, uo eloquence, no ability 
can excuse, palliate, or defend the lawless usurpation of Wiltz and 
hie associates. Here was the beginning of this troubU?, and but for 
this there would lie now uo trouble in Louisiana. If tliose one Imu- 
dred and two men had met theie on tlieir organization, then i)assed 
promjitly upon the claim of the five persons to seats, the probability is. 
that the democratic i>arty might in due process and in due form of law 
have obtained the majority ; but they would not do it. Tliey seized 
upon that organization by force and violence; they trampled upon 
every principle of the constitution and parliamentary law. They 
Avouid rather win l)y force than gain by fairness ; and thus it was that 
the troubh's which have occurred in Lonisiana, and which nowciisgrace 
our republican form of government, were precipitated by a lawless 
baud of desperate men who Avould not pursue the forms of law to 
gain Avhat they claimed to be the rights of a majority of that body. . 

Mr. President, to show you that I have taken a dispassionate view 
of this matter, I proi)()se to liave read a brief extract from a paper 
that 1 saw published in the New York Times, and which contains my 
view of this case so strongly that I venture, although I do not knoAV 
the gentleman but 1 am tokl ho is a-democratic lawyer of stand- 
ing in the city of New York— Mr. E. W. Stoughton— to ask that his. 
statement of the legal aspect of the question as it was presented by 
Mr. Wiltz's seizure upon the organization, be read. I gladly embody 
his opinion as my own, and it is better stated than I can state it. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows : 

AVliile the roll was boiiis c.illect l)y tliR old clerk, a member iiominateil AViltz as 
temnorary .speaker, a]i(l without a moiiieiit's delay he was declared elected, not by 
the clerk, say.s Mr. Seiuiiiz, aud s])iavis; to aud'took forcible possession of the 
speaker's cluiir and i;avc>l. Thei-e, in defiance of the efforts of the clerk topi'ooeed 
and re<^ularly onranize (he assembly, AViUz called upon a justice iircsent to swoar 
him in. This was done, and then a Iriiiiioiavv clerk was nominated and declared 
elected, and then, in the same maniiei-, a seri;eant-at-arm8 ; and imineiliadly tollow- 
ins this, numei-misassi.stuntscrgcauts-at -arms, who, on being deilaredehited. opened 
their coats 'id displayed badges of ollice. sliowiug clearly tli.at all this fraud and 
outrajje had been carefully ))lanued and contrived beforehand, and that these 
assistant s» rieants were selected, and doubtless arni(>d. with a view to Iioldiug 
violent jiossessionof the house, and of its organization, after the fraud should have 
been peipetrated. Inuue<liately afler lliis ti'iii])orary organi/.al ion, the conspirators 
— 7ii)t a lc(ji, dative hothi pcaccahbi. or otlicnrisi-, assfinbled — proceeded to declare live 
liersons, who had obtained access to the hall, but who hadiuit been returned by the 
ret uniin}; board, members, and entitled In sit as such. Thus had been aecom])lished 
by fraud and violeiiee a great ])ublic wrong against the State of Louisiana — sub- 
v'eisive of law, of constitutional lights— Ijy means ef which, if succi'ssful. the legis- 
lative ])0\ver was deli veifd over to tin- persons not charged with it as representatives 
of the people, but who — a minority at the outset — had by fiauil and force so added 
to theii- numbers as to become a majority. 

Mr. SHERMAN. That is the opinion of a lawyer who, I am in- 
formed, stands in the very iirst rank in his profession in New York, 
but does not agree with mo in politics. 

It is said sometimes that it is within the sole and exclusive power 
of the Jiouse of rei>reseiitatives of Louisiana, like all other legisla- 
tiA^e bodies, to pass upon the election, returns, and ((ualitications of 
its own members. So it is. That again is a fundamental principle 
of constitutional law. From the very necessity of the case, each 



23 

Louse iiiiist .juilge of tlic cloctions, returns, and qiiiilifK-aiioiis of its 
members; but who is to judge? Each house. Who is the Louse? Is it a 
lawless band of usurpers described by Mr. Stoughton ? Have they alone 
the power to pass upon tLat question ? If it was left to tlie Louse 
tLeu present in Louisiana, it is i)laiu and manifest tliat in tlie lirst in- 
stance at least tLose five men could not Lave been aduiitted to seats. 
But eacL Louse sLall judge of the election. How judge ? By vote. 
TLat is tlie only way tLat a legislative body can judge, by bearing 
tLe case; or by a vote even witliout Learing tliey may decide. Was 
tLere any Learing tLere? Were there any papers presented sLowing 
tLat tliese five men were entitled to seats ? Was tLere any discus- 
sion ? Was tLere any opportunity of discussion f Was tLere any 
vote '? No ; but tLe usurper wLo sat in tlie cLair, according to Mr. 
Stougliton, refused tLe majority of tlie members of tlie Louse of rep- 
resentatives of Louisiana tliat wLicL is conceded by tlie constitution 
of tLat State to any two of tLem. He refused when tliey called for 
ILe yeas and nays upon tlie vote to admit tLose five men. Could 
tLose five luen vote to admit tliemselves ? My friend said tLat if 
you add tliose five men to tlie minority of democrats tLat would Lave 
made a majority. But can tLat minority admit five men in order to 
make a majority — tLere is tLe question— and tLat witliout a vote by 
yeas and nays? Not at all. 

Mr. LOGAN. TLey could not vote on their own admission. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Certainly tLey could not vote on tlieir o'.vn case 
anyway, even if tLeir rigLt was undisputed and indisputable ; and 
clearly tLe majority wouLl Lave been against tLem, at least in tlie 
first instance. Upon tLis point I will ask tLe Clerk to read tlie opin- 
ion of Mr. StougLton, because it presents tLis particular point stronger 
tLan I can do. 

TLe CLief Clerk read as follows : 

It has been said in the speeches to which I have alluded that it is the rijiht of 
every lesi.slative body to dotennine who shall sit as its members. With certain 
(Xnalilicalioijs this is true ; but can the persons not lawfully letuined as members, 
but cliuiiiiiis to sit, and wliose, ni;ht is contested, vote as members for the purpose 
of estalilisliinj; this ii;^ht ? Take the case wo are considering. Theie- were tifty- 
t\v(i !■( piililirans and fifty democrats enrolled as members. Five oIIk'is — d<'nu)- 
crats — (■laiiiic<l tlie r!;j.ht to sit. They nuist h.ave voted for Wiltz aw ti-iupoiary 
speaker or he could not have had a, ma.joritv- Nor could they have beeu <le(lared 
members without also voting on that, <iuesfion if there had Uetn a lawful oganiza- 
tion, for in that event there would have lieeu a majority of rei>ulilic;uis. Tlu^ piop- 
osition that every legislative assembly is to Judge of the (|ualilieali(iiiH of its mem- 
bers of course assumes lliat tlx; pcisous wliosc riglittosit is iu <|Uesl iou are uot to 
act or vote as members until a lawfully eonstituted asseml)ly has deleruiincd tliat 
right. This iiroposition was perverted and misapplied by speakers at the Cooper 
Institute. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I will also ask the Secretary to read tLe conclu- 
sion of Mr. StougLton, alter a lawyer-like examination of tLe whole 
case, as to wLetlier tliat body tiius organized was a legal liouse. 

TLe CLief Clerk read as follows: 

In view of these facts, who will aay that this was a legislative body? Who that 
it had pe,a('eably assembled? It had come into exisleuce by xioliiice and fraud. 
It bad by forc(5 and fraud exi)elled a majority of t)u' lawfully nlurued uiemb<i's, 
and had thus deprived them of all iparti(ii)ation in theorgani/.alion of I lie house. 
It was a lawless body, forcibly, not peaceably assembled. It held the hall of tho 
house of repres(mtatives by vi(di'ut means, and the live mendjcrs unlawfully ad- 
mitted and employed to accomjilish this were tbe instruments by which this scheme 
had been made eliectivo. 

Mr. SHERMAN. That summary .sliows this whole case. A lawless and 
desperate minority seized upou the organi/.at ion of the house wluin as- 
sembled there to organize the house, refused to the majcnity all parlia- 



2-t 

mentiuy righi^f, ami thou, in violation of the laws of Louisiaua, under- 
took before tlie orj'aiiization of that lioiise to swear in five men witliout 
a vote, without an exainination, without a hearing ; aiul luiving .sworn 
in those live men in t his way, tlien, i)re8to — cluuigc — a vote was allowed! 
After they had eleeted a tempoiary speaker, after they had elected a 
clerk and soigeaut-at-arnis and admitted five new members, had half 
a dozen diilerent ririt roci' votes, against protests, against repeated 
calls for the yeas and nays, then, after they had accomplished their 
revolutionary pur])ose. ]o and behold tliey are ready for a vote ! Tiieu 
a vote was demanded l)y ont^ of them ; a vote was taken before the 
final organization, an<l with tlie live men thus unhiwfully admitted 
they claimed to have a majority, and then they app(;aled to (jeneral 
De Trobriand to i)ut out the lawless fellows who were making a little 
fuss ! 

Let us now. examine tlie question put to me awhile ago, and sec 
Avhat General De Trobriand did do ; but fii'st let us sec Avliat he did 
not do. General De Trobriand appeared just as he had ilone bef<n'e, 
with the same number of aids, and with the same uniform, with an 
order from Governor Kellogg, sanctioned by his imnu>diate com- 
manding officer, General Emorj' ; and what did he do ? He went 
there, exhibited his order, told them tliat it was a very un])Ieasant 
duty, that he was a soldicir, and asked Mi. Wiltz (recognizing him to 
that extent) to point out tlie live nu'u wliom it was bis duty to expel 
from that body — no rudtuu'ss, no violence, no force except the force 
that they themselves liad appealed to. What then? Did General 
De Trobriand eject any man who had a right to vote in that organ- 
ization ? Did he eject any man whose name was ou that roll as a 
member ? Did ho exjiel any democrat because he was a democrat, or 
any re])nbli(an ))ecause he was a republican "? No, sir; but he ejected 
five men who had no right to vote in tliat oi-ganization, whose 
claims, if they had any, were claims to be decided l)y tlie body itself 
after it should have organized, as contestants or claimants. Five 
men were then in possession of certificates in due form of law, act- 
ing for the very parishes tliat these five men claimed to represent. 
Among the lawless acts of violence was to turn out five men who 
were then in 

Mr. BAYAKD. There was no expulsion. They were members from 
])arish(is which had not been acted ui)on by the returning board, aud 
no contestant appeared at all against those men. 

iSIr. Si i^">^^IAN. Perhaps I am mistaken in that particular, but it 
makes no difference to the argument. Those five men were not on the 
list ; they were not returned by the returning board as memliers, and 
their cases were very jiroperly referred to the body itself, when it 
should be organized. Thes(? Avere tlie five men, no one of whom had 
a right to vote in any part of that organization, who were gently ex- 
pelled. 

Mr. BAYARD. May I ask the Senatcn- wheth<M- he considers it the 
duty of (General De Trobriand to turn out those five men? 

Mr. SHEKMAN. I will come to that; I will tellprecisely my opin- 
ion. This ofticer did not do this as a piirtisan. It was not like some 
of the historic cases Avhere lawless \ iolence at the will of party and 
for partisan advantage has subverted the law and used military force 
for that purpose. Nobody could say that of General De Trobriand. 
He was a gentleman, in every sense of the word, in manner, edu- 
cation, and habit; he had been appealed to by both sides; and we 
know, from the current history of the country, that General De Tro- 
briand was regarded, with great favor by all the people of Louisiana 



25 

ou both Mules of politics. He is simply ;i military officer seeking to do 
Ids duty. There was therefore no partisan warfare waged l)y him. 
It was upon the written order of tlie governor of the State, whose 
oath reipiiredhim to enforce the law, that he appeared. 

I have seen a great deal of complaint made al)0ut the powers of 
tlie governor of Louisiana, and I am free to say that I never would 
vote, for a constitution that contains the powers granted to the gov- 
ernor of Louisiana ; but it is the constitution of Louisiana, and it 
must be obeyed, and it must be enforced there. The power given tt> 
Governor Kellogg by that constitution is very much greater than is 
given to the governor of the State of Ohio or to the governor of any 
other State that I know of. He is armed with discretionary power 
in many cases v.here it is not conferred by the laws of other States. 
This a(;t of De Trobriand was don(^ under the order of Kellogg. We 
fnust inquire into the power of Kellogg to issue the order and as to 
the extent ot that power. I ^vi]l read firftt a paragraph from article 
48 of the constitution of Louisiaria : 

The supreme executive power of tli(> State sliall be vested in a chief magistrate 
who shall be st}"led the governor of t!ie State of Loiiisiaua. 

Then after defining the duration of his office, «?cc., article 7i9 jjro- 
vides : 

He sliall be oomiiiaudei-iu-cliief of Ihe militia of lliis State, exe.ei)t when they 
shall be called into the service of the United States. 

Article 65 provides : 

He shall talie care that the laws be faithfully esecnteil. 

Then his oath is contained in article 100 : 

I, (A B.) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I accept the civil and political 
equality of all men. and agree not to attempt to deprive any person or peisons, ou 
account of race, color, or jirevioiis eondition, of any poii(ii-al oi- civil right, privi- 
lege, or innnnnity enjoyed by any other class of men : tliat I will sujiport the Con,- 
stitution and laws of tlie United Stati's, and the constitniioii and lavisof this State, 
and that I will faithfully and impartially dischaige iind perform all the duties 

iuciunbent on mo as according to the best of my aldlify and understanding : 

ao help mo (lOd. 

This constitution makes the governor of Louisiana not only the 
chief executive of/icer and the commander-in-chief of the militia of 
the State, but requires him to take this string'ent oath, and also re- 
qtiires that he shall take care that the laws be ftiitli fully executed. 
How did Gm-ernor Kellogg intervene in this case? It must be remem- 
bered that he intervened u])ou an tiuthority very unusual and very 
remarkable. Here a mttjority of the men wlio were elec'tod to tlie 
house of representatives of tlittt IjCgisliiture, who ap])eared there on 

the 4th day of Januiirv, fifty-two all told, signed a v,-ritten request 

■ Mr. SCHURZ. Mr.' President 

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Ixgai.ls in the chair.) Does 
the Senator from Oliio yield to the Scuiator from Mi.ssouri. 

Mr. SHERM.yS\ I would rather not. 

Mr. SCHURZ. I merely want to put this question, whetluir the 
Senator calls fifty-two a majority of the men who weie elected to the 
lower house of the Legislature of Louisiami ? 

Mr. SHERMAN. I say that fifty-two men were a majority of those 
who liad a right to vote on the org.-mi/.atioii of the house. 

Mr. SCHURZ. If I understand the Senator correctly, he saiil that 
fifty-two were a majority of the num wiio had biicii elected to the 
lower house of Tjouisiana. 

Mr. SHERMAN. If I said that, my friend is so acute as to have 
detected it quickly. What I meant to say and what I now say is that 



20 

tlie UKijority of those who were elected iitkI h:ul the right to sit there 
OH that day, and wlio were present, made the refjuest of the governor. 

Mr. SCIIlJlvZ. The Senator tlieu admits that tlfty-two Avere a 
majority of the men who were elected to tlie lower house of the 
Louisiiin.i Le<;ishiture f 

Mr. 8HEJixVlAN. Upon my word, if the Senator thinks that before 
the people of the United States he can make any lieadway by that 
kind of technicality, he has very much mistakeii their intellij.!,ence 
and their spirit. One hundred and eleven men Avere elected; one 
luindred and two of those thus elected a])peared with their IcDjally- 
constituted certiiicates, and only one hundred and two — one hundred 
and two all told ; and no man, woman, or child in all the broad lim- 
its of the United States of America had any right to participate in 
that organization except those one hundred and two men, })ecansQ 
theirs were the names responded to when the roll was called, and 
none others by the law of Louisiana could participate. Goveriior 
Kellogg only intervened upon the demand of iifty-two men, a major- 
ity of those entitled to vote. 

Ah, but why did not these fifty-two men send their request to the 
governor in the ordinary way f Why did they not meet and vote to 
send their request to the governor? Because a lawless minority had 
usurped their x>hice in the house of representatives and that lawless 
minority had called on the military authority to expel practically 
the majority, for that was theeftect of it ; and this w^as the only way 
in which tins majority could speak. Their voice was silent in the 
usual parliamentary way. The only way they could speak was by 
signing a paper calling upon the gover)ior of the State of Louisiana, 
as he would answer to God at the great day, on the solemnity of his 
oath, to see that the law for the organization of the Legislature of 
Louisiana wasfiiithfully observed. Mark it : if there was any irregu- 
larity in this proceeding, it was an irregularity caused by the men 
who complain of the execution of this order. If it was not the house 
that spoke to Governor Kellogg, it was because the minority usurped 
tire house and the majority could only speak by a written statement 
to the governor; au(l they made that statement and demanded of 
Governor Kellogg to intervene. 

Now, I will go a ste]) farther. I will say that Governor Kellogg 
had the undoubted right, it was his bonndeu duty, whether he lived 
or died iu41ie elt'ort, to put down that lawless violence when thus 
called ui)on l)y a majority of the men who had a right to control 
that voice. 

Mr. SCIiUKZ rose. 

ThePEESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Ohio yield? 

Mr. SHERMAN. No; it interru|>ts my argument. The Senator 
had his say and was listened to with great respect and attention. 
Every word of his speech I heard myself without interrupting him ; 
but for some reason I cannot speak hero without being continually 
interrupted. 

Any irregularity that occurred, I repeat, was an irregularity caused 
by the lawless violence of Wiltz ; and there was an oi)portunity for 
Kellogg to have immortalized hiinseU'. Had ho been a bold, audacious 
man, even if he was ambitious, had he gone into the presence of that 
turbulent house Avithout a single soldier behind him and had com- 
pelled those men to listen to the law Avhich directed the organization, 
to listen to his oath, to listen to the obligations imposed upon him by 
the constitution, he would haA-e been not only defemled but authorized 
and justilied in the use of any force AvhateA'er to put down that vio- 



jence. My friend from Iiidiaiui says lie would have bfcii unii'dered. 
That might have been true. It only shows still more tlic dangers of 
society in Louisiana, the lawless audacity Avhicli controls uiattertv 
there, which would murder the governor because he would resist the 
usurpation by a minority of a house of the organization of the house. 
It was one of those occasions where a bold man uiay impress his name 
npira history; and I am inclined to think that if he had gone there 
in that way they would not hiwe dared to murder him. But my 
friend from Indiana says he would have been murdered, and perhaiis 
he would. 

What else did he do? He gave his order. He ought to have called 
n\Mm the poti-sc tomiliitits ; he ought to have called on the ]>olice au- 
thorities ; he ought to have called upon such forces as were within his 
reach. Why did he not do that ? There my friend from Indiana 
would give a very satisfactory explanation, that in the excited state 
of feeling in Louisiana he could not call on the constables or the 
militia. He was connnander of the militia; he had power to call 
upon them to aid him in executing the laws. He could not do 
it without creating bloodshed and murder; and perhaps that is 
a good reason. We know very well that such is the state of so- 
ciety in New Orleans that probably any appeal whatever, any at- 
tempt by any legal authority either to suppress a riot or to put 
down lawless violence, especially where politics mingles in it, 
would probably lead to general war and general bloodshed. Tliat 
is one of the misfortunes of the state of society in Louisiana. 
What then? With this letter before him, signed by fifty-two 
men who had the riglit to control the oi'ganization of that house, 
with the proliability that if he entered thei'e in the discharge of his 
duty he would be murdered, leaving Louisiana Avithout a governor, 
Avitii the probaViility that if iio called on the militia it would not re- 
spond to his call or would not obey his order, that if he called on th(^ 
coustabudary force it would only preciiiitate a conllict between armed 
men — nmler these circumstances of difficulty Governor Kellogg 
called npon General De Trobriand, and General De Trobriand went; 
there, with a lieart that was white and free from offense, without 
any intention to trample on any man's liberties, in obedience to a 
lawful call, as he sup])oscd, by Governor Kellogg to put out live men 
whose presence interrupted the organization of the house of repre- 
sentatives of Louisiana. 

My <;olleague asks me if I approve this thing. I cannot say that I 
do; but this I say, that I ai)]>rove it precisely to tlie extent that the 
President of the United Stafes aijproves it, and God f(U-bid tliat I, on 
account of my respect to law and my ideas about the usi; of military 
autiiority, should cast ashes upon the head of General Ue Trobriand 
Avho in a time of great difficulty, under circumstances of peculiar and 
critical urgency, simply did what he supposed to be his duty. 

There is the whole case. The President of tlie United States so 
states it. There is the whole of it. To call this one of those great 
liistorical outrages wlu-n the rights of a free people are trampled ui>on, 
is simj)ly making a mountain out of a m<de-hill. All the violence 
that was used was (•omy)elled by Wiltz, and only enough was used to 
execute what General He Trobriand believed to be a lawful order of 
Governor Kellogg in expelling men who prevented the organization 
of that body. 

In addition to that. Governor Kellogg had the nndonbted riglit to 
call on the President of the United States for the military force of thti 
United States to supi>rcss domestic violence. At that time the Legis- 



28 

lature was uot organized and could not be organized by reason of the 
very events tliat I have narrated. The Constitution of the United 
States in that case, and precisely in such a case, gives to the governor 
the power to call on the President to suppress domestic violence, and 
this order of Governor Kellogg was made in pursuance of that pro- 
vision of the Constitution, though on account of the urgency of the 
matter it was not made through a special call on the President of the 
I'nited States. 

Troops being then in-esent under a previous call justified by the 
general sentiment of the people of this country, they acted at once 
without a direct order from the President of the United States. I 
cannot say that it would be right for anoiucerof the Army, upon the 
call of Governor Kellogg, without a direct order from the President 
ot the United States, to appear there and enter into that legislative 
hall and do the duties of a constable. My idea of the Army is that 
it is an organized force only to sx^eak on great occasions, and then 
against an armed enemy in its front. I do uot think the Army of the 
United States ought to be used for many of the purposes for which it 
has been used. I think it ought to be kept intact, free, clear from 
all political associations or affinities, stand aloof only to meet force 
with force, and only to suppress violence when called upon to do so 
in the constitutional way. That was the case here, except that there 
was no legal order from the President. The circumstances were pe- 
culiar. They were imminent. They were urgent. Anybody in Lou- 
isiana, any citizen of Louisiana, anj' portion of the militia of that 
State would have been perfectly justified, under the call of Governor 
Kellogg, in doing aU that the troops of the United States did. If we 
place any reliance ui)on the constitution, it was the duty of the gov- 
ernor to act, and act promptly, but only Ijy a civil or uiilitary force 
under his command. The troops of the IJnited States, in my judg- 
ment, ought to have been kept out of that arena; but God forbid, as 
I said before, that I should cast any reproaches upon General DeTro- 
briaud or any other officer of the Army who under these circum- 
stances did v.hat he believed to be his plain duty. What was the 
result? Nothing exce))t that the majority were restored to their 
power to organize that house, to pass upon the elections, returns, and 
qualifications of the members, and to go on in jmrsuance of law to 
make laws for the people of Louisiana. 

Mr. President, this is all I desire to say about the particular events 
that occr'-^ed on the 4th of January ; and I now come to some col- 
lateral questions which are necessarily brought into the case, and to 
which my attention has already been directed by several inquiiies 
made by Senators and also by the general latitude and scope of this 
debate ; and the first one is tlie action of the returning board. 

My colleague and the Senator from Delaware, who must be embar- 
rassed by the difficulties of their position in seeking to defend this 
lawless and desiderate revolutionary usurpation by Wiltz, say that 
the returniug board of Louisiana, according to the report of the 
committee of the House of Eepresentatives, were guilty of illegal, 
fraudulent, and improper acts; that they did not do their duty; that 
they refused to return five men who were lawfully elected. It ap- 
pears that this board returned that the election of these five men 
was secured by fraud, violence, and intimidation : that under the law 
they were returned not elected, but their cases were referred to the 
house to be passed upon by the house itself. They claim also that 
the returning board were guilty of fraud, inasmuch as that by the 
-returns submitted to the board there was a democratic majority of 



29 

•29 iu the house of represi'iitatives, and they say they Avere cheated 
out of that majority, aud a return made of 53 republicans aud 53 
democrats, instead of giving the democrats a majority of 29. 

Mr. THURMAN. Not tliat. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I tliink that is the substance of it. I think the 
returning board returned 5:» (k'niocrats and 53 republicans. 

Mr. THTRMAN. Flffy-fonr repuldicans and 52 democrats. 

Mr. SHERMAN. The Senator from Louisiana tells me the return 
was tifty-three democrats and tifty-three republicans, and five men 
were returned as not elected aud their eases referred to the action of 
the organized house. Here is the case. \Vhat then? Suppose we 
admit your whole charge ; my colleague is a lawyer, and has been an 
able and excellent judge; would he stand up here in the Senate aud 
say that l)ecause all tliese things have been done any portion of 
that body could go there aud with revoluticmary violence seize upon 
the organization, disregard the rights of the majority or minority 
there, refuse a call for the yeas and nays, refuse a vote, ])ut in five 
men without a vote, and iji many respects violate the law of its or- 
ganization ? I think not. If you admit all that these gentlemen 
claim, what is the remedy ? The remedy poiut(id out by the consti- 
tution of Louisiana, the same that is pointed <nit by the rule of the 
House of Representatives of Congress ; that the house, when organ- 
ized, shall pass upon the elections, returns, and tjualiiications of the 
disputed persons. The intervention of the returning board is a kind 
of agency that I am not familiar with. We have no such tribuiuils in 
Ohio. We have no such returning board in the sense iu which this 
board existed, with power to refuse men their certificates because of 
alleged fraud, intimidation, or violence. But that is the law of 
Louisiana, and this case must be governed by that 'law. The present 
law of Louisiana, as I understand, is similar to the law they have 
had there for a number of years iu this particular, for a returning 
board — a very daugerous and bad tribunal, in my judgmeut, because 
if the returning boftrd is controlled by partisan politics, it may do 
just what these gentlemen say this returning board did. But still 
there is the law, aud these men were bound to obey the law. The 
law must govern iu the proceecUngs to organize that house ; and un- 
der that law the men whose names were returned by them alone 
could vote. Biit upon what evidence does my colleague say that 
these things were done ? Upon what evidence does he say that the 
returning board committed a fraud ? Upon the statement made by 
three members of the House of Representatives of this Congress, all 
highly respectable gentlemen, made upon a short and cursory exam- 
ination of a few days, made without the presence of the president or 
any member of that board, so far as appears — certainly without the 
presence of Governor Wells, an old citizen of Louisiana, who was not 
present before them ; made in haste. Upon this information, no 
doubt honestly given, because I know each of the gentlemen whose 
names appear to that report, and I know that neither Mr. Foster nor 
Mr. Phklps nor Mr. Potter woiild sign anything that they did not 
believe to be true — upon this statement suddenly made by them, on 
going there in ignorance of all the facts, made however upon their 
honest responsibility, believing these facts to be true, these charges 
are alleged. Suppose it to be so, what diftereuce does it make? It 
does not affect the legal (|uestions involved in the organization of 
that house; but until you hear both sides of that question is it wise 
to condemn the l)oard by wholesale. 

There is one rule of law which is universal, and that is tliat every 



30 

person charged with the porformance of a public duty is presumed to 
-do his duty unless the contrary appear. Yon cannot go on -with a 
representative govornnicnt, ^\'licre all tiie powers of the government 
are conducted hy agents, unless yon give to the acts of those agents 
a reasonable inference of purity aiut justice. That is tlie rule of the 
law. AVe are bound to presume tliat the returning board had a legal 
basis and a just basis for all their actions. If you cannot rely ujjon 
it, it sliows tliat the organiziif ion of tlnit l)oar(l was wrong, that its 
meniV>eis wevv, corrupt, or that they grossly violated their ])ublic duty. 
None of these things are to be inferred, nor can they be hastily proven 
upon the hurried statements of a committee sent there to examine 
this among a great many other things, without the presence of the 
five men who Avere members of the returning board, without the evi- 
dence of the president of the l)()ard, who it would seem was absent. 
Although he sent his aHi<lavit, it was not received. 1 have nothing to 
say in mitigation of tlu^ conduct of the board. If they did what my 
colleague says, they viohited their duty, and ought to be held up to 
public scorn and contempt; but that must not be presumed. It must 
not be hurriedly assumed upon a statement like this. Wa know that 
at this moment other gentlemen — probably it would be no derogation 
to the committee who signed the report to say men at least equally 
able as lawyers, ;^s intelligent and as x>f>triotic as citizens, have gone 
there to re-examine the conclusions of that committee. But sui>})Oso 
it turns out to be that the statements of this report cannot be varied, 
does that alt'ect the question f Not at all. It still leaves the law of 
Louisiana intact; it still gives to those x-eturned by the returning 
board the power to orgaiuze the house. 

But, says my colleague, that is yielding everything. There again 
they assume that the majority of the house thus returned will wrong- 
fully and fraudulently exclude men legally elected. The Constitution 
of the United States places upon the Senate the power to pass upon 
the returns of our members. It may be that the Senate fraudulently, 
<',oiTuptly, or with improper motives may reject .a man who has been 
duly elected a Senator; but there is no other tribunal that can pass 
upon the question from the nature of things. So in the House of Kep- 
resentatives. The Constitution gives to that House the power to 
judge of the elections, returns, and qualitication of its members. I 
have seen democrats seated by a republican House. I have seen 
republicans seated by a democratic House. It is to l)e presumed that 
these higli-political bodies will p(^ift)rjn their duty according to law. 
If you cannot base that presumption u])()u reasonable probabilities, 
then our Government is not worth a ro))e of straw. It rests upon the 
•general intelligence and fairness of the majority rather than the mi- 
nority. So in the house of representatives of Louisiana. What 
right have these gentlemen to assume that because they have been 
cheated out of the returns of some of the members, the republican 
majority returned by the returning board would exclude^ live nu^n if 
they were legally elected? I do not believe they would. Indeed I 
have heard fnmi information, just as we gather it from others, l»y 
those who were present, that there is scaxrely a doubt tliat whatever 
might have been the disi)()sition of a nuijority of the republican mem- 
bers returned, there wei'c enough men among them of character and 
fairness and justice who would have fairly decided upon any case 
that miglit b(^ brought before them. 

IMr. THUMMAX. I do not wish to interrupt my colleague even for 
a. moment, because he dislikes to be interrupted ; but I want to ask 
liini if he does not know that what is called by the repnldicaus the 



31 

Legislature of Louisiana, tliat same body that professed to elect Mr. 
Pinchback ou last Tuesday, have actually, without any investigation 
whatever, seated the five men who were defeated for the seats that 
were ()r(ii))ie(l by the five men who were expelled by De Trobriaud? 

Mr. .SllEKMAK". If that be so, I hope that the repuldican majority 
in this Senate will do its duty when it comes to examine the question 
referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. But is it to 
• be presumed that the majority will not do its duty? Here the 
arraignment would go directly to us that we are not to be trusted in 
passing upon the Pinchback case, because, forsooth, we may trample 
uijon the rights of the mi)iority! 

There is no rule which goveins the organization of parliamentary 
bodies more uuivei'sal iu its application than this : that although re- 
turning boards and reports from secretaries of stiite and other merely 
executive officers may in the first ]ilace j)i"epare a list that is not just, 
not fair, not jiroper under the circumstances, yet the power of the 
house, it is presumed, will be exercised always to seat men who have 
been lawfully elected, and Avill not in any case expel a man who has 
been elected from his seat, although he is in the minority. Therefore 
I dismiss from my view of the case tlie action of this returning boai'd, 
first, because we have not yet sufficiently developed the facts'in the 
case ; and next, even if the facts are sliowu to be as now claimed by 
Senators o!i the other side, they will not justify in the slightest de- 
gree or palliate any of tliis lawless violence, but we nuist rest npou 
presumption that a majoritydulyretm-ned will act fairly andlionestly 
upon the returns of the members who have been elected. 

There isanotherthing: This case isconstautly aftectedand shadowed 
by the doubts that rest on the election of Kellogg. That ought to b.e 
dismissed. Whether Kellogg was lawfully elected or wrongfully 
elected, prf)bably will never be ascertained, because, according to the 
report of the connnittee of this body, the condition of fraud, violence, 
intimidation, and wrong that prevailed in 1872 will forever prevent 
any solution of the question as to whether Kellogg was legally or 
illegallj' elected, whether McEnery or Kellogg was elected. It is one 
of those questions that probably we cannot decide. It is a painful 
<|ues(,ion to me. I iiever have voted yet to recognize the results of 
the Louisiana election of 1872, because, after reading the able reports 
that were made by the majority and minority of our connnittee, I was 
totally at a loss to say whether or not Kellogg was elected. But Kel- 
logg was there, recognized by the local authorities, x'ecognized by the 
supreme court of the State of Louisiana, by judges elected before the 
election occin-red, is now recognized by the' President of the United 
States, recognized also by the actioiiof the House of Re])resentatives 
in admitting members wfio were eleclcd on the sanu^ ticket with him. 
He being recognized by all tliese de])artments of the (jlovernment, 
whatever may be our opinion in regard to the election of Kellogg, no 
one can qiu^.stion his right while acting dc. facto; as governor to exer- 
cise all the powers of governor, until his right to do so may be dis- 
puted, we cannot measure his ))owers as governor at any less gauge 
than if he had been ele(;ted without disjiute or controversy as to fho 
nujjorily. We have nothing to do witli the case. He is there in pos- 
session of the executive authority, armed with the ])o\vers given hinv 
as governor. He appoints judges; he ajjpoints nearly all the ofiicers 
of the State. They are there now in the enjoyment of their offices. 
He has been recognized by the sui)r(!mo court of the State in two 
or three decisions. Wo cannot overthrow his government without 
tliemost careful examination : and until we do overthrow it bv some 



32 

l(>g:il .ict wo, iimst roc()jj;iii/,e liim as governor :i!ul give to his acts all 
the force and all the conseqnences of the actsof a lawful governor. 

Now I come to another point upon which a great deal of declama- 
tion has been expended, and that is the telegrams of Sheridan. It is 
UOAV admitt<'d and known to all the people of the United States that 
these honorable Senators who wouhl not knowingly do injustice to 
any one, high or low, did do the grossest injustice to General Sheridan 
and the President of the United States. All over this country the cry* 
of a military despot, a tyrant, a usurper, Avas rung and repeated 
iigainst General Grant and General Sheridan. It turns out, when we 
have the facts, that General Grant did not know anymore about the 
events of the 4th of .January than we did ; that all tlie orders he had 
given were legal orders, appi'oved and sanctioned by ]>ublic opinion, 
in consequence of the attempted revolution in September, ld74. This 
me«<e, this sudden violence, was a surprise to him, and he heard of it 
■with the same sentiments that we felt when Ave read the dispatches 
ou the morning of the r)th. All was ncAV to him, and he Avas in no 
sense responsible. So Avith General Sheridan; he was there, not de- 
siring, not intending to assume command. Avhen suddenly VvMltz 
seized, upon that organization, put the brand to the burning pile, 
axoused the Avhole population there, and Sheridan under the excite- 
ment of the moment sent his indignant telegrams. What are they ? 
This brave soldier, Avho has carried our banner in many a hard-fought 
field, and nearly always to A'ictory, one of those Avhom the American 
people have been delighted to honor — Avhat has he done, in the name 
of Heaven, that brings doAvn upon him iu)w all the reproaches of 
party heat and i^arty hate? Let us sc^e. No act, remember, of his ; 
he did not participate in General Do Trobriand's act, whatever it 
was ; his command commenced at nine (J'clock that night, at a time 
when a fever heat i)revailed in NeA%- Orleans, when at any moment 
armed bodies of men might be brought into collision. Being then 
there, a soldier of superior rank, armed Avitli authority, he assumed 
the responsibility, and from that time forward he is responsible for 
what he has said and done, but up to thnt time he is not for anything 
done there. Let iis see what he said in his lirst telegram, because he 
has actually done nothing. Here is the dispatch, Avritten within 
probably an hour after he assumed command, because it seems to liaA-e 
been received here at 11.45 p. m. on the 4th of January: 

"W. W. Belknap, 

Secrt'.-^y of War, Washington, D. C. : 
It is with fleop rojrret th.it I have to announce to you the existence in this State 
of a sjiirit of dcliance to all lawful authority aud iiii insecuiity of life which is 
hardly realizcil liy the (iciicral (fovcruuu'ut in- the coiiulry at hiri;'!'. The livi-s of 
citizens have hccouic so jcojiai-ilizcd that uulcss siMiicthliit;'iN <l()ue to <;iv(>pi'(itcction 
'to the people, all securil.\- usually aliordcd liy law will lii' overridden. Dcliance to 
the laws and th<^ murder id individuals scci'n to he looked ni)on hy the conununity 
here from a stand-point which i;ivesiiupiinity to all who choose to ludulp' in either, 
and the civil jioverninent ap]>ears powerless to punisli or even arrest. I haA'e to- 
night assumed control over the Department of the Gulf. 

P. H. SHERIDAN, 
Jjieutcnant-Oeneral United Slates Army. 

This is a terrible statement of facts. If they existed, it Avas the 
duty of Sheridan to communicate them, however mucli it might stir 
up the feelings of otliers. If they are false, then General Slu-ridan has 
cither ignorantly or AvillfuUy deceived tind misled the President upon 
a most vital point. What are the fiicts? When I read that telegram, 
I must confess that I shuddered, because, if true, it Avtis :i fearful 
picture of demoralization in Louisiana; if false, it Avas an equally 
fatal error on the part of Sheridan, an Ai-juy oificer, to state such facts 



33 

if thfy did not exist, and uuless be knew that tliey existed. Now, 
read that telegram in connection with the fnll information we have 
of the condition of affairs in Lonisiana; and I tell yon, sir, that after 
reading a later telegram of his, on a subseqnent page of this docu- 
ment, if that is a statement of what has actually occurred there, 
where dates, and figures, and amounts, are given, then I turn back to 
the telegram of General Sheridan on the evening of the 4th of Janu- 
ary, and I say that telegram is true, every word of it. You may read 
these two telegrams together. My colleague cannot make light of 
this. There are the wonis of a soldier in black and white, like an 
indictment stated with more than the precision of a lawyer. If the 
telegram of the date of January 10, 187.5, is true about Louisiana, 
then every word that General Sheridan said in his telegram of the 
4th is true. 

Mr. THIJRMAN. Where did he get the proof from ? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Do you deny any fact he asserts ? 

Mr. THURMAN. I'alpably 

Mr. SHERMAN. I ask the Secretary to read that, and I hope 
Senators will see how much the statements made by him rest upon 
historical facts, records which cannot be denied ; and if that telegram 
is True, I say that the first telegram is true. 

Mr. THFRMAN. Where did Sheridan get his knowledge ? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Where we get our knowledge — from facts ; it 
makes no difference, if he stated the facts. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows : 

New Orleans, January 10, lsT.5— ll.no p. ni. 
Hon. "W. W. Belknap, 

Secretary of War, Washington, D. C. : 

Since the vear 1866 nearly thirty-five hundred persons, a great majority of whom 
■were colored men, have been killed and wounded in this State. In 18(58 the official 
record shows that eighteen hundred and eighty-four were killed and wounded. 
i>om 1808 to the present time no official investigation has been made, and the civil 
authorities, in all but a few cases, have been unable to arrest, convict, au(i punish 
perpetrators. Cousecjuently, there are no correct records to be consulted for infor- 
mation. There is ample evidence, however, to show that more than twelve hun- 
dred persons have been killed and wounded during this time on account of theii- 
political sentiments. Frightful massacres have occuired in the i)arishes of Bos- 
sier, Ca<ldo, Catahoula, S.iint liemard. Saint Landry, Gr.int, and Orleans. Tht* 
general character of the mas.sacre,s in the above-named parishes is so well known 
that it is unnecessary to describe them. 

The isolated cases can best be illustrated by the following instance,s, which I 
take from a mass of evidence now lying before me of men killed on account of 
their political principles: In Jsatchitoches Parish, the number of Isolated cases 
reported is thirty three ; in the parish of Bienville the number of men killed is 
thirty; in lied jiiver Parish the isolated cases of men killed is thirty-four; in 
Winn I'arish the number of isolatt'd cases where men were kille<l is i]ft<en; in 
.r;«kson I'arisli tlie nunib«T killed Ls twenty ; and in (Catahoula Parish the number 
of isola(»-d easi's reported where men were killed is fifty, and most of tlie countiy 
parishes tliroughoiit the SUite will show a coiri-spondiiig state, of .-iffiiirs. The fol- 
lowiug stal«-iiiciits will illustrate; tin- cliaractrT- and kiml of tlii'si- outrages: 

On the ;ttltli of August. 1^74. in Kcd 14iver P;iiisli, six Stilt. • ;iud i)arish ofljcera, 
naiued Twilclull, Divers, Holland, Howell, Kdgerton, and Willis, wire taken, to- 
gether with four nt'gr<Hs. under guard to be cariii'd out of the State, and were 
deliberately Tuurdered on the -.iitth of August, 1874. The White League tried, sen- 
tenced, and hung two uegi-oes on the 28th of August, 1874. Thiee negroes were 
shot and killed at Hrowiisville. just before the aniv.al of the United States troops 
in this parish. Two white-leaguers rode up to a negro cabin and called for a drink 
of wat-er. When the old colored man turned to draw it, they .shot him in the back 
and killed him. The courts were all broken up in this district, and the di.strict 
judge driven out. 

In the parish of Ca<ldo. prior to the arrival of the United States troops, all of the 
officers arShreveport were compelle<l to ab<licAte bythe White League, which took 
pos.'-ession of the ulace. Among those obliged to abdicate were Walsh, the mayor, 
Kapera, the sheritf, Wheaton. clerk of th'.; court. Durant, the recorder, :iiid t'er- 

3i 



34 

};;iisoii and Kiufio, admiiiirttrators. T.wo colored incu. who had s'lven evidence iu 
ivuaid to fiaud.s committed iu the parish, were compelled to flee for their lives, and 
reached this city last night, having been smuggled through in a cargo of cotton. 

In tlio parish of Bossier the White League have attemj)tid to force the abdica- 
tion of Judge IJaker, the United States commissioner and parish .judge, together 
■with O'Xeal, tlie sluritl', and Walker, the clerk of the court ; and they have com- 
pelled the parisli and district courts to suspend operations. Judge Baker states 
tliat tlie while leaguers notitied him several times that if he became a candidate 
on the reiuibliiaii ticket, or if he attempted to organize the republican party, he 
should not live- niitil election. 

They also triiii to intimidate him through his family by making the .same threats 
to his "wife, and wlien told by him that he wa.s a United States commi.ssiouer, they 
notitied him not to attempt to exercise the functions of his office. In but few of the 
country ])urishes can it l)e truly said that the law is properly enforced, and in some 
of the i)arislies the .judges have not been able to hold court fur tlie past two years. 
Human life in this State is held so cheaply, that when men are killed on account of 
political opinions, the murderers are regarded rather as heroes than as criminals iu 
the Idealities where they reside and by the White League and their supporters. 

An illustration of the ostracism that prevails in the State may be found in a 
resolution of a White League club in the parish of De Soto, which states "that 
they pledge themselves under (no ?) circumstances after the coming election to 
employ, rent land to, or in any other manner give aid, comfort, or credit to any 
man, white or black, who votes against the nominees of the white man's party. 
Safety for individuals who express their opinion iu the isolated portions of this 
State'has existed only when that ojduion was in favor of the principles and party 
sujiported bv the Ku-Klnx and White League organizations. Only yesterday 
Judgi' M.\ers, the jiarish judge of the parish of Natchi todies, called on me upon his 
aiiival ill this city, and stated that in order to reach here aUve he was obliged to 
leave his home by sti alth and after nightfall, and make his way to Little Rock, 
Arkansas, and colue to this city by way of Memphis. 

Ho fiirtlier states tliat while' his father was lying at the point of death in the 
same vilhige, lie was unable to visit him for fear of assassination, and yet he is a 
native of the i>aiisli. and proscribed for bis political sentiments only. It is more 
than ])robable tliat if bail government has existed in this State it is the result of 
the armed oigaiiizafiiins, whichhave now crystallized intowhat iscalled the White 
League ; instead of bad soverumeut developing them, they have by their terrorism 
))rcvent<(l to a (onsideiable extent the collection of taxes, the holding; of courts, 
the punislinieiit of ciiminals, and vitiated public sentiment by familiarizing it with 
the scenes al)ove deseiibed. I am now engaged in compiling evidence for a de- 
tailed report ujiiin the above subject, but it will be some time before I can obtain 
all the rei|iiisite data to cover the cases that have occiu'red throughout the State. 
1 will also report in due time upon the same subject in the States of Arkansas and 
Mississippi. 

P. H. SHERIDAJT, 

LieuUnant-General. 

Mr. 8IIKI1MAN. Here is the statement of a high officer of the 
United States that the people of this country will believe if my col- 
Icagtie does not. He is there on the ground. I ask if he cannot learn 
the facts Ijettcr tliau my colleague who sits here in the Senate Cham- 
ber, where we are all peaceable and quiet, and where our disputes are 
only wordy, instead of the bitter disputes they have in Louisiana. 
General Sheridan states in that document historical facts already 
proven by testimony upon our records, like the bloody story of Colfax, 
like the Coushatta miu'der, the murder of judges and attorneys in the 
discharge of their duties. General Sheridan also tells you what he 
knows himself from persons whom he has communicated with there. 
Sir, I say to my colleague in all kindness that if that di.si)atch of 
General Sheridan be true, as I fully believe it is, and it would not 
Lave been made up except upon a strong showing, then all that has 
Ijcen said of Louisiana has never been sufiicient to denounce as strongly 
as they ought to luive been the atrocities there committed. 

Mr.'BAYAED. Does the Senator give any effect at all to the 
response of tlie merchants and the leading clergymen of every 
denomination in the city of New Orleans ? 

Mr. SHEKMAN. I will come to that in a moment; but I say 
this 



Mr. BAYARD. Aud tlie report of the sub-committee of the other 
House, all northern men? 

Mr. SHERMAN. I know very well how in the state of thuigs in 
Louisiana such denials come from the clergy in New Orleans. Do 
they deny the Colfax murder? Do they deny the murder of Judges? 
They siraj)ly say that a state of lawlessness does not exist there. 
What they deny is not Sheridan's second dispatcli but Sheridan's first 
dispatch, and that dispatch is simply a declaration that lawlessness 
prevailed. Now, I ask, if the second dispatch is true, does not law- 
lessness prevail? I do not want to go into the particulars, but these 
are historical facts. These men may meet together in chambers of 
commerce, though in one case they struck from their roll a man who 
told the truth ; they may meet in their conventionals, these religious 
denominations, and preach aud deny these general facts ; but when 
they rest on purely historical documents so easily proved as physical 
facts, the people of the United States will believe them, and will 
attribute these denials either to the careless ignorance of those gen- 
tlemen who utter them or to a desire to avoid the terrible indictment 
thus made against the State of Louisiana. 

Mr. WEST. If the Senator will allow me to interrupt him a mo- 
ment — I was not paying attention a few moments ago, but I under- 
stood that the Senator's colleague asserted that five men from these 
disputed parishes have been admitted by the republican members of 
the Legislature. 

Mr. THURMAN. I have seen it so stated. 

Mr. WEST. The Senator is misinformed. There were three out 
of the five, and those three came from parishes that were returned as 
republican. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Now, I want to go a little further. The first dis- 
patch I entirely approve every word of upon the information we 
have, and I have no doubt we haA"e as much information as is known 
anywhere. Now, in regard to other telegrams of General Sheridan 
which have been commented upon with great violence and great 
injustice, let me read them. On the .Sth of January, the day after 
these transactions, he telegrajihed : 
W. W. Belknap, 

Secretary of War, Washington, D. C: 

Please sav to the President that he need give himself no uneasiness about tho 
condition ot affairs here. I will preserve the peace, which it is not hard to do with 
the naval and military forces in and about the city ; and if Conui ihs will declare thu 
White Leagues aud other similar organizations, white or black, l)aiulitti, I will 
relieve it fi'om the necessity of any special legislation for the juisiin ation of peace 
and equality of rights in the States of Lomsiana. Mississijipi, Arkansas, aud tho 
Executive from much of the trouble heretofore had in this section of thfcoiuitry* 

J'. 11. SIIKIilDAX, 
LieutoiMiit- General United States Armij. 

That is, '' If Congress will do so and so, I will do the rest." Very 
well; I have no doubt tliat if Congress would do asGtMieral Sheridan 
here suggests he would do the rest; but Congress will not do it, can- 
not do it, ouglit not to do it, aiul that is the end of it. If General 
Sheridan istobe ytunished forbad advice given toCougrcss.Godsave all 
the peojde of the United States who Lave sent us here schemes enough 
to ruin tlte whole Government a thousand times over. Is General 
Sheridan to be punish<'d for a telegram based upon wliat Congress 
might do when he suggests " If Congress would do so and so, I will do 
so aTid so?" This telegram has been spread over the country as evi- 
<lence on the part of Sheridan of an incendiary spirit which would 
burn the city of New Orleans and scatter havoc and dcvastat ion over 
the whole country ; and my friend from Maryland [Mr. Hamilton'] 



3(5 

J)ccame so indignant and so eloquent about tliis that I n-ally did not 
know what would Ix-conic of bim and of us all. Here was a mere sug- 
gestion tliat if C<)ngn\ss would do so and 80, he woTild do so and so. 
He can perform what he agreed to do, but we cannot do what he pro- 
posed that Ave should, and nobody supposes we could. Ou the con- 
trary, Congress has exorcised its power in dealing witli these turbulent 
and lawless Ku-Klux organizations l)y making law, and that law has 
been enforced in the courts aided by military autliority. That is the 
only remedy we can give in such cases, and thatremedy we have given. 
Now let me read the next dispatch : 

AV. W. Belknap, 

Secretary of War, Waxhinglon, D. C. : 
Itliink that the terroriHiii now existinj; in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas 
could be tMitirely removed and coufldence and fair-dealing established by the arrest, 
and triiil <it tlie rin^le:ideis of the anned White Leagues. If Congress Would pasft 
a bill declaiiiifi them bamlitti, they could be tried by a military commission. The 
ringleaders of this banditti, who iiiurderod men here on the 1 1th of last .September, 
andalso more recently at VieksliuiKh. Missis.sippi. should, in.jusliceto lawand order 
and the peace and ])iospei it s of thi.s southern part of the country, be punished. It 
is possible that if the President would issue a proclamation declaring' thi'm ban 
ditti no further action need be taken except that which would devolve u]>oii nie. 

P. H. SHKKIDAN, 
Lieutenant-General United States Army. 

Here again is a repetition of Sheridan's advice: If Congress would 
declare them banditti, then he would put them down; and if the 
President Avould issue a proclamation, he might probably be able to 
do the same; and he says : 

The ringleaders of this banditti, who murdered men here on the 14th of last 
September, and also more recently at Vicksburgh, Mississippi, should, in justice 
to law and order and the peace and prosperity of this southern part of the coun- 
try, be punished. 

Should they not be ? Those scoundrels — I will not use any harsh 
word, it is not necessary — those lawless men, armed and organized 
in violation of the law of the State of Louisiana, who sul) verted its 
government on the 14th of September, ought they not to bo pun- 
ished? They killed one hundred men. Is that no crime? They still 
l)0ssess the arms that they stole from the arsenal, according to the 
statement of the Senator from Louisiana. Is that no crime ? Is it 
no crime to have within the State an armed organization .sworn to 
overthrow the State ? 

The President of the United States thought this ought to be pun- 
ished, and he <lid all he could by issuing his proclamation and saying, 
"Gentlemen, disperse in five days or I siiall be called upon to perform 
my constitutional duty," and they dispersed. But does that make 
their crime any the less? No, sir; they are guilty of murdei', and 
they ought to be; tried and piuiished. 

But the use of the word " banditti " gives offense to gentlemen, and 
it has been said that General Sheridan called the whole people of 
Louisiana banditti. He did not do it. He says the ringleaders of 
the White League are l)anditti. " Declare them banditti, and I will 
settle them." "Bandit" is a strong word ; but I have been looking 
at the dictionaries to see whether or not General Sheridan was exactly 
right in u.siug that word. I have taken the definitions of all the 
standard authorities ; and let us see whether the acts I shall mention 
make these men banditti : 

BAVnrr. One declared to be banned, banished, exiled, outlawed ; an outlaw.— 
liichardi'on. (Best Knglish authority.) 

Xo savage tierce, bandit, or mountaineer 
\S'ill dare to soil her \ iigin purity. 

Milton. (Comus.) 



37 

Who ;iro they who can be said to be governed by law.s of their own making? I 
never heaid or read of any such, except, perhaps, anions pirat-os and other banditti, 
who, trampling on all laws, divine and human, refuse to be governed in any other 
way than by their own licentious regnlations. — Beattie. (Moral Science.) 

BANniTTi. Persons who live by rapine, and tind themselves 'in opea revolt 
against the laws of the country. — Encyclopedic du XIX'. Siecle. (French.) 

In Italy the banditti are very nimierous and form a regular society, subject to a 
formal organization. — Ibid. 

BAXDirn, (Italian). A band of robbers, outlaws, or ruffians. — Worcester. 

Banditti. Men outlawed— robbers. — Johnson, (edited by Latham.) 

A Roman sworder and banditto slave 
Murdered sweet TuUy. 

ahakespeare. (The only case of its use in his plays.) 

BANinx; ])lural. bantiITTi. An ontlaw; also, in a general sense, a robber, a high- 
wayman; a lawless or de.iperate fellow. — Webster. 

Now, let us look and see whether these men are banditti within the 
meaning of the word. He wa« speaking ot tlie Kii-Khix, the white- 
leagiiers; and as the Ku-Kluxnow have been pretty well developed, 
we know what they were — an armed baud, sworn in secret, concealed, 
doing murder by night, robbing, plundering, crucifying ; yes, name- 
less crimes, which dare not be uttered, were committed by these ban- 
dits. The bandit of Italy, where the word came from, only cai)tiires 
the rich. The men whom the Ku-Klux plunder, as they say, are the 
poor. The Italian bandits stopped the rich priest or nol)leman and 
made him pay a good, heavy ransom, but they never capture the poor, 
the ignorant, aud the lowly. So the Spanish bandit always deals out 
something like mercy or something like justice, and his punishment 
depends upon the ability of the person to pay. If he has nothing t-o 
pay, he is treated with a night's rest and good fare and .sent to his 
home again. We had in English history a few hundred years ago 
another kind of bandits called tlie " merrie men of Sherwood," Kobin 
Hood and Friar Tuck and that class of bandits. They always, like 
the Italian bandits, captured rich priests, levied contributions on 
monasteries and castles, and occasionally made a very l)ig haul ; but the 
Justice administered at Sherwood was the justice of honesty. The 
poor were always protected ; aud yet they were English bandits or 
outlaws. 

What are these Ku-Klux? They are just as much worse than the 
Italian bandit or the Spanish bandit, or the Eugish bandit, as robbery 
of tlie poor is worse than robbery of the rich, as murder of the de- 
fenseless is worse than of the armed, as murder ])y night, under con- 
cealment and disguise, with the weapons of the coward, is than in 
the bright daylight, when the breast is presented to the lance of the 
enemy. Wliy, sir, for the Ku-Klux, as they liave now been devel- 
oped, flie word "bandit" is too respectable. I have here a report, 
called "The Key to the Ku-Klux : iixlividiial rei)ort aiul revelation, 
by Edward A. Pollard, of the condition of tlie Soutli." He is the 
historian of the southern rebellion, a southern man in every sense of 
thet<!rm. I will read what he says of tlie Ku-Klux, and see whether 
they and their lineal descendants, the White Leagues, are banditti or 
not. This was ju-inted in 1-172: 

It is no longer questionable that there exists in the South a very detest.lble sort 
of lawlessness banded under the name of tlie Ku-Klux, and committing vacious 
crimes, even to the extent of murder; this is res adjudicata. 

There is the admission that they are lawless bands of murderers and 
outlaws. If they be not banditti, then I do not know what it can 



38 

be ; but I will reatl a little furtlier. He goes on to show that this 
organization grows out of hostility to the negro, and then proceeds : 
They never omit an oppoi-tunity to strike at the black man, and that, however 
ditJ'erinj; in othti- respects, they all unite in persecuting the negro. This is their 
secret bouil of sympathy, the common ground of all the varieties of the Ku-Klux, 
the true e.\)ihuiatioD — 

Mark the words — 
of a particolored conspiracy in the South that, at once occult and shifting, has by 
its various di.sguises and transformations confused criticism, and foi- some time bat- 
fled even the most searching and determined investigations. 

Again : 

The -writer thinks enough so far lias been given of the description of the Ku- 
Klux to establish its true character, and to strip, alike, fi-om it, on the one hand, 
its own flimsy disguises by which it has attempted to impose upon public tolera- 
tion or allowaiKf, and, on the other hand, the weak pretenses by which the Fed- 
eral GoverniiHiit has sought to construe it as incipient treason, and to magnify 
it into an occasion for martial law and other machinery of despotic iiit< ifiitiico 
and usurpation. This mysterious order in the South, wliich has so disrui lied the 
imaeinations of the country, turns out to be a very vulgar and oidiuary thing — 
hateful t iiough, but not quit.- so fearful as the fancy of alarmists or the design of 
politicians liad made if. It is not a knight with his visor down, nor a disgui.sed 
jiiissionary in great public affiiirs — there is no romance about it; it in only a vulgar, 
ukulking foot-pad and murderer, to be ruthlessly hunted doien and exterminated with- 
out compunction or mercy. 

Are not those bandits ' I think General Sheridan nnist have been 
reading this book, not only for his epithet but for his remedy. I 
will read a little further. Here is a single ca.se given by Mr. Pollard 
that in atrocity I think passes anything I ever read. It seems to me 
a horrible atrocity, and yet it is written by a gentleman who is 
endeavoring to induce the southern people to put down the Ku- 
Klux : 

The bravery which could kick in the heart a poor manacled negi'o or grind under 
its heel the torn, bloody tace of a fallen victim ; w'hich had the nerve to jeer at the 
last dumb agonies which attend the ever unknown, unutterable mystery of death ; 
which was capable of such scenes as that related to us by an eye-witness of one of 
the exet utious of the Ku-Klux, where, when the ^nctim was swinging from tho 
limb of a tree, one of his murderers leaped out of the crowd and by a sudden feat 
of activitv vaulted on the shouldeis of the dying man, so as by increase of weight 
to tighten tlu- gi asp of the rope and insure its work, and. amul liuzzas at his agil- 
ity, .sat there, crouched and grinning like a demon, until the unruly an<l struggling 
body beneath him wa.s still and he was sure that his knees pressed only a breath- 
less' corpse. 

That was an organization in the Southern States. I ask yon if 
they weie not banditti, and was not Sheridan right ? I say, sir, that 
the atrocities of these men always stiired my blood. I do l)elieve 
now from the best information we "have, although it is not as full and 
complete as I hope it will be made, because we ought not to act has- 
tily upon iusutticient information, that the White League is but the 
same thing over again. These lawless acts of violence which have 
made a bloody page in the history of Louisiftna, which have written 
on that record contained in the telegram of Sheridan a tale of atroc- 
ity that seems more like a record of some period of the Middle Ages, 
a record parti v described here by the chosen author of th«' History of 
Ihe Southern Rebellion— I tell you, gentlemen, that such atrocities 
by such men demand not only the name which has been given by 
General Sheridan of " bandittf," but they demand of us the e.\er(US(S 
of every power of the General Government that wcmay lawfully aud 
constitutionally exercise to put down and exterminate the men guilty 
of them. 

The error of General Sheridan's advice was that, not being a lawyer 
or statesman but a soldier, be probably assumed that the Government 



39 

would have the power to deal summarily with all these desperadoes 
that he called banditti. We must deal with them according to law, 
but iu some way or other we must put an end to these atrocities, or 
else the very name and fame of republican institutions will be a 
by-word and reproach. Sir, there is tliat in these lawless acts of vio- 
lence that not only arouses the sympathy of mankind for the victims, 
but the stern condemnation of the actors by every just man ; and I 
know that my fellow Senators here on tlie democratic side feel that 
all these outrages are wrong and must feel as I express myself ; but 
all t-hese outrages are committed in the name of and for the benefit of 
the democratic party. If that day should come to which many of 
you look forward with hope, when the democratic party shall be in 
])ower in this Government, then one of two things will be true : 
either the blacks of the South will be turned over to the tender mer- 
cies of these men, or you will have again the fires of reljellion kindled 
in our midst. 

We have sworn, in taking our oaths to maintain the Constitution 
of the United States, to secure to all the people life, liberty, and prop- 
erty. We are as much bound to secure the emancipated blacks life, 
liberty, and property as we are bound to seciare them to our own 
home and kindred. We must do it, or this Government is forever dis- 
graced. 1 would not so dread the accession of the democratic party to 
power but for the fear that springs in the minds of hundreds of thou- 
sands of good people of this country that you would not have the 
power to resist the overwhelming and controlling influence of the 
very bandits whom I have been characterizing. 

Mr. BAYARD. I wish to understand whether the Senator 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Ohio yield ? 

Mr. SHERMAN. I cannot refuse to yield to a question, but I would 
rather not. 

Mr. BAYARD. Go on. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I say then that while I wholly disapprove of the rem- 
edies proposed by General Sheridan — and he simply submitted themti> 
tSie Congress of the United States — yet after a sober review of such 
papers as I have before me, which I could accumulate until the sun sat 
androse again, furnished me by my honorable friend on my right, [Mr. 
Scott,] who was chairman of the committee on the Ku-Klux organiza- 
tion but I will not wearj" the Senate with them, I insist that something 
must bo done to suppress these White League manifestations. This 
White League organization isof the same affinity as the Ku-Klux. I had 
a document here which shows by tlie admission of some southern men 
that the White Leagues and these other associations si>rang out of the 
Ku-Klux. The Ku-Klux were suppressed by the law, which was en- 
forced in some of the States, and they abandoned it or pi'obably 
abandoned it partly on the urgent appeals of such men as Mr. Pol- 
lard, who denounced them as a great disgrace against civilization. 
But the White League comes in, armed, organized, and disciplined, 
sworn to overthrow the State government of Louisiana. They say 
they are for protection. We know they are not. What would my 
colleague and I feel if the laws of the State which we have the honor 
to represent had not the power to suppress at once any military or- 
ganization aimed at its life ? We boast that we represent here three 
millions of people, peaceful, quiet, and happy, who difier about every- 
thing and have the right to differ, who speak their minds boldly and 
freely, a community that we are proud to represent; and yet, if any 
of these things were brought home to the knowledge of the democrats 
in Ohio, and they could hear and see that by the ascendency of demo- 



40 

cratic rule there would be a revival and au encouragement of acts of 
atrocity like these, tliey would shrink from the enterprise, however 
desirable it might be in other respects. Sir, you will have to con- 
vince the northern people that this story is not true. You cannot do 
it, my worthy colleague, by sneers or smiles; it must be done by sober 
facts, because liere are indictments which cannot be an.swered lightly. 

Now, Mr. President, I wish to correct a misapprehension that might 
grow out of my remarks denunciatory of the White Leagues and the 
banditti. I do not say that all the people of Louisiana are of that 
mode of thinking at all. I know that we republicans sometimes 
neglect to give to these people in their present condition duo con- 
sideration for some of the circumstances by which they are sur- 
rounded. In the tirst place, in Louisiana the war has left its excite- 
ment ; and some of the scenes of the war in the Red River country, 
in this very Coushatta region on the upper part of Red River, and iu 
New Orleans, have left great animosities, and we cannot expect theset 
to die away in a moment. We must take that into consideration in 
viewing the conduct of the people of Louisiana. Besides, they have a 
mixed population. . We know that there is a portion of the popula- 
tion of French descent, a portion of Spanish descent, many and prob- 
ably a majority of colored people, some from foreign lands, some from 
our own Northern States, some from other Southern States. Probably 
there is no portion of the people of the United States that ha^i a more 
mixed origin than the people of Louisiana. In all cases that tends 
to promote violence, because sometimes speaking dilierent languages 
they cannot understand each other ; sometimes being educated in 
difi'erent lands and under ditferent institutions they cannot appre- 
ciate the institutions under which we live. All these things are to 
be considered. 

They have to encounter another great diflSeulty in the novelty of 
former masters and slaves living together as freemen. This we know 
by all history is a most difficult problem. Those who were once 
slaves, whose wives and children were bartered and sold like sheep, 
are now citizens. The masters have been impoverished ; they have 
lost their slaves ; they have lost the use of their lands ; all their 
labor is broken up. All these things are to be considered, and we 
must not overlook them. We must not therefore expect from them 
the same orderly regularity, the same freedom from violence and 
force, that we should expect in a stable, orderly people like the peo- 
ple Oi Ohio or New York. All the sources of wealth, are dried up. 
When I was there last winter I conversed with gentlemen of all 
political parties, and saw the great change in the value of their 
property and the amount of their income. Some families had incomes 
dependent upon the rents of real estate in New Orleans, and the real 
estate would hardly i)ay the taxes, and they were reduced to povoity, 
hardly able to gather money enough to pay their taxes. All that 
creates acerbity and bitterness of feeling, and no one felt it more than 
I did at that time. Thoughtful men I say should give heed to all 
these discouragements and difficulties ; but after all, considering 
them all, we have a right to ask of these people to respect the law, to 
be obedient to the law. If they have a majority, in the name of God 
let them have the power of the majority. I would not, I am sure, 
and I do not believe any of my fellow Senators would, seek to 
deprive any State of the right to be govei'ne<l by its own people, by 
home government, as they call it. What we do say is that they shall 
not trample down the rights of others ; that when they are exercis- 
ing their own right iu voting as they please, electing democrats. 



41 

electing confederate generals if they please, anybody they choose, 
they must not trample down the rights of the wards of the nation, 
■who have been emancipated by our policy and by our laws. Equal 
rights, equal privileges, equal facilities for education, for life, for 
liberty, and the acquirement and enjoyment of property — that we 
demand ; aud in the name of God and by the agency of the republi- 
can party Ave will have it sooner or later. There is no doubt about that. 
I will not now dwell upon the remedy. I intended to do so, but I 
am ali-eady too wearied to enter upon it. But I do say that the 
Senate ought now to take up this matter in a dispassionate way and 
do equal and exact justice to these people. If a democratic house was 
elected there last November lawfully and fairly, iu the name of Heaven 
given them the organization, requiring them however to organize 
according to law, to obey the law and not obtain it by lawless 
violence. If they get the control of the house in a regular and legal 
way, let them have it. The republican party is strong enough and I 
hoxje brave enough to do justice to our political adversaries. If, as I 
honestly believe, their success will be an unmixed evil to our country, 
it can be easily repaired, and the future is all before us. Then let 
them secure to all the jjeople of Louisiana equal and just rights, and 
let us hear no more of the wrongs, outrages, and murders that have 
wronged the State of Louisiana. Why can they not live iu peace ? I 
cannot conceive of a state of society where a whole population is 
overawed and intimidated, as undoubtedly the negro population are 
to a very large extent iu many parishes of that State, where murder 
can be committed without punishment. The mere statement that a 
thousand murders — only take one-third of what General Sheridan 
says — that a tliousand murders have been committed iu Louisiana 
and not a single maji punished for them is a fact so atrocious, so ter- 
rible, so damnable, that I can hardly believe it. Yet there it is. How 
that matter occurred at Coushatta, how the people there, democrats 
and all, did not rise and follow the murderers and take instant ven- 
geance on them, or at least secure them and try them before the courts, 
I cannot imagine. Yet four or five young men from the North who 
went there with capital, who went merely to build up a little village, 
were suddenly broken up and murdered after they had surrendered. 
The murderers violated even the code of honor which always secures 
a man who surrenders safety. After these men had surrendered and 
were on their way from the country on the road to Shi-eveport, they 
were murdered. 

Mr. THURMAN. Why were the murderers of the Italian miners 
near Pittsburgh not ])uuished ? 

Mr. SHERMAN. My friend calls attention to a fact that I did not 
know. In the Northern States Avhen crimes of this kiiul are com- 
mitted they are always dealt with aud iiunished, and if not they are 
subject to denunciation. Sometimes poor human nature will yield to 
a sudden imp\ilse and connnit an atrocious crime, rarely tliougli, in a 
community where law and order are observed. But does that exjjlain 
the universal lawlessness that murders over three thousand ])eo])le in 
a few years in a snuill population? Look at the lawless nuirder that 
occurred at Colfax where fifty or sixty negroes were killed after they 
surrendered. Look at the murders of judges and and prosecutors 1 I 
hope my colleague will not bring up the occasional crime tliat is com- 
mit led in the Noithern States to justify or palliate or extenuate any 
of the offenses. In Ohio when crime is conunitted, although some- 
times it may have been induced by strong feeling and excitement, 
like a recent case that occurred near Urbaua where a man was mx- 

4i 



42 

lawfully and improperly killed by a mob under the most gross and 
terrible provocation that conhl move the human lieart — when such 
things occur, they must be only incidental cases rarely hapi)ening in 
a community like that, but when they do ha])pen the whole popula- 
tion, democratic and reiiublican, rises up to put down and i)nnish 
everybody who violates the law. Bnt it is not so in the Southern 
States; 

If I have not misread the history of those States, (and certainly I 
have no desire to heap coals upon their heads, no desire to be Tinjust 
to them,) if I have read aright the history of those States as depicted 
by investigations made l>y authority of Congress, there has existed a 
state of lawless violence that has no counterpart in any history I 
know of. There may be one remedy. These jieople may submit to 
the democratic party and produce a kind of peace, but it is not the 
peace of equality of rights; it is not the peace that your Constitution 
guarantees to every man; it is the peace of despotism, of violence, 
which never will give you the peace of prosperity, wealth, education, 
and progress. What we insist on is, that having by our Constitution 
made all slaves free and promised all the protection of the law, 
they slnmld be protected in every right. When one of them is killed, 
his murderer should be tried and punished just as the murderer of a 
white man wcnild be tried. If they are plundered and robbed by 
gangs of outlaws going to their poor cabins, as occurred in one case 
recently in Tennessee, where they fired into a cabin and killed a poor 
school-mistress, whose only crime was that she had put up a little 
school in the neighbf)rhood — when such things occur, the instinctive 
spirit of the mass of the whole people of all parties should prompt 
them to see that the guilty are punished. I have no doubt that this 
is the sincere wish of many good men in Louisiana. When I was 
there a year ago I saw intelligent merchants, good men, men whose 
intelligence and ability would enable them to pass anywhere in the 
world as gentlemen, and in conversing with them they would speak 
freely of these things. They never denied the atrocities that had 
been committed. They did not do what has been done in the North- 
ern States a thousand times over. They admit them, but palliate 
them, and claim that they are utterly powerless to prevent them. 
Such was the feeling often expressed and with it a generous longing 
for peace. I saw gentlemen in Louisiana who belonged to ditferent 
parties, some of the clergy, some merchants, some bankers, some 
planters; I had the iileasiu-e of enjoying the hospitality of two of the 
most intelligent sugar-planters. These gentlemen did not deny the 
outiages of which avc have heard, nor did they defend them. They 
told me the uuliappy situation in which they were placed. Society 
was disorganized and demoralized by the results of the war. I felt 
for them from the bottom of my heart. Many causes contributed to 
their discouragement. When tliey denied that Kellogg was elected, 
and comi)lained of all the successive governments installed over 
them, they fieely divided the responsibility for their unhappy con- 
dition between the lawless crimes and recklessness of white men, the 
ignorance of the blacks, and the rapacity of plunderers who fatten 
where lawlessness prevails. 

There are a great manj' lawless young men springing up in Louisiana 
as well as in other Southern States without apparent emi)loyment. 
Their condition in life is greatly changed by the results of the war. 
They are the men who fill your Ku-Klux Klaus and White Leagues. 
They have the spirit that is excited by youth and madness, and it is 
they who make these forays and no one punishes them, and the few 



43 

good, sober, older lueu have no power to control tliem. The power 
of the South and the power of the democratic party there rests mainly 
with those young men who were in the confederate service and are 
now to some extent deprived of means, dejjrived of emjiloyment, with 
their homes broken up by the freedom of the slaves and the sale of 
their lands. These things are to be considered. All we ask of them 
is that they will obey the law, execute the law, respect the life and 
property of all, and if they have a majority they shall have the 
power. That is all we ask, and we demand and will have it. 

The republican party in its long administration of this Govern- 
ment has never been animated by a desire of depriving any man of 
any right conferred upon him by law. Our long struggle has been, 
to secure to every man the rights and iirivileges of freemen, and that 
whether he be rich or poor, learned or ignorant, white or black. Sup- 
ported by the people, we have written their rights in the Constitu- 
tion of the United States. We will demand the faithful observance 
of this Constitution in all its parts and with all its amendments, and 
if this is accorded by the democratic party in truth and in fact, our 
political contests will quietly drift into the minor struggles of men 
lor office or of questions of political economy, which only affect wealth 
and not life. I do with all my heart respond to the peroration of a 
speech made the other day by the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Gor- 
don] for peace, harmony, and good will. He says he is heartily sick 
of all this stirring up of bad passions. So am I. But they never will 
rest at your bidding until all meu, black or white, native or natural- 
ized, from the North or the South, can go fi-eely and safely anj^where 
within the limits of the United States and enjoy his rights as a citi- 
zen. Such has not been the case in the South. And until then the 
struggle will go on by the party that upheld our flag in the civil war, 
that emancipated all slaves, and has sought to reconstruct our repub- 
lican institutions upon the broad basis of equality before the law, and 
security of all to exercise anywhere the rights conferred by the laAV. 
Whatever I can do to secure the rights of all the people of Louisiana 
to govern themselves according to law in harmony with the Consti- 
tution, and so as to secure them all in life, liberty, and property, this 
I will surely do. 



Ui S '12- 



